Ad Gloriam Trinitatis et Honorem Beatae Mariae Virginis

"The Nativity Story" Film and the Evil of Blasphemy

2011-12-22T11:21:00.000-05:00

“Let us pass on to the second gate of Hell, which is blasphemy… A certain author says: "Every sin, compared with blasphemy, is light;" and first of all, St. John Chrysostom says, there is nothing worse than blasphemy. Other sins, says St. Bernard, are committed through frailty, but this only through malice. With reason, then, does St. Bernardine of Sienna call blasphemy a diabolical sin, because the blasphemer, like a demon, attacks God Himself. He is worse than those who crucified Jesus Christ, because they did not know Him to be God; but he who blasphemes knows Him to be God, and insults Him face to face. He is worse than the dogs, because dogs do not bite their masters, who feed them, but the blasphemer outrages God, Who is at that very moment bestowing favors on him. What punishment, says St. Augustine, will suffice to chastise so horrid a crime? We should not wonder, says Julius III, that the scourges of God do not cease while such a crime exists among us.”
-Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Bishop and Doctor of the Church, Six Discourses on Natural Calamities Divine Threats and the Four Gates of Hell

Each year at this time families are settling down to walk the now ubiquitous set of Christmas movies for the average American. These films can all be viewed at one time or another on TV because they have become such "classics" in American culture. These I think would include: It's a Wonderful Life (1946), Miracle on 34th Street (1947), Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (1964), A Charlie Brown Christmas (1965), etc. I certainly do not have a problem with these films, especially since they are vastly superior to most films today, though if you have not read my post for the Feast of Saint Nicholas which contains my views on "Santa Claus" then I would refer you to it now.

Now into this series of "classics" have entered in any number of new Christmas movies in the last few decades, some remakes of the old classics and some new takes on old stories, but they all seem to have in common the very secular aspect of modern western Christmas. So it is then most understandable that when a movie comes along that purportedly is centered on Christ and the actual message of Christmas that Christians and especially Catholics would latch on to it. Unfortunately, doing this blindly is a most dangerous mistake indeed. While movies that are entirely secular are less than desirable at this time of year a film which is supposedly focused on Christ but which subtly twists and subverts the true message of Christ and important Catholic theological teachings is far worse and even diabolical.

Enter then the 2006 film: The NativityStory. I personally witnessed the great excitement of many Catholics even in the Roman Curia over thismovie, which soon became very popular and even received praise from many Catholics,including some in the hierarchy. Unfortunatelythis film is fraught with theological errors and countless instances ofblasphemy. But because of the lack ofeducation of Catholics most have no idea that this is the case. Thankfully there have been a number of goodand Holy priest who are so devoted to our Lady that they were willing to speakout forcefully against this movie even in the face of Bishops and Cardinalsseemingly praising the film.

Onesuch priest, who I know personally, gives his thoughts in a short sermon here, and places the teachings presented in this powerful medium of film in contrast with that of the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

Now I want to make clear that there are many issues in this film that make it unwatchable for any Catholic. It is fraught with all sorts of blasphemy and even one blasphemy is one too many. For the Holy Spirit speaks in no uncertain terms about the evil of blasphemy in Sacred Scripture: "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die." (Lev. 24:16). Just as we cannot be accomplices in murder or any other sin we most of all cannot be accomplices or indifferent to such offenses against God.

One instance that is particularly repugnant is our Lady's consent to having witchcraft practiced upon her. The ever blessed virgin Mary approving of occult practices! What incredible blasphemy! Certainly our Lady and Saint Joseph knew their Scriptures well:

"When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God shall give thee, beware lest thou have a mind to imitate the abominations of those nations. Neither let there be found among you any one that shall expiate his son or daughter, making them to pass through the fire: or that consulteth soothsayers, or observeth dreams and omens, neither let there be any wizard, Nor charmer, nor any one that consulteth pythonic spirits, or fortune tellers, or that seeketh the truth from the dead. For the Lord abhorreth all these things, and for these abominations he will destroy them at thy coming." (Deut. 18:9-12)

That being said, formy part I researched into one specific issue concerning a blasphemy most prominently presented in the film that deeply outrages me. This concerns the dogmas of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, as well as her Immaculate Conception. This particular doctrine of the Catholic faith is something that I always felt to be true before I had any support for it and it is something I have beenbothered by in many accounts of the Nativity of our Lord that have appeared infilm, TV, and on the radio.

I am speaking here of the portrayal of our Lady having birth pains.

When I first heard this teaching that our Lady was free from pains of childbirth it made perfect sense to me, because it is the most logical conclusionbased on what the Church teaches. Let meexplain what I mean.

WhenBlessed Pope Pius IX infallibly declared the dogma of the Immaculate Conceptionof our Lady, in his encyclical Ineffabilis Deus on 8 Dec. 1854, he said the following:

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrinewhich holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of herconception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in viewof the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved freefrom all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore tobe believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful. Hence, if anyone shalldare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us,let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that hehas suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity ofthe Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penaltiesestablished by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by anyother outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.”

Nowwhat follows from this then is that Mary would then be free from all theeffects that we labor under who were indeed conceived with original sin. No original sin means no effects of originalsin. It’s as simple as that. Now what are these effects? Principally: Concupiscence, with a darkenedIntellect and weekend Will. But Godalso gave some very specific punishments that were attached to the first fall:

“To the woman also he said: I will multiply thysorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, andthou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee.”–Genesis 3:16

The labor pains that all women now suffer then are a direct punishment from the original sin and all who have the mark of original sin are subject to it. Thus it clearly follows that because our Lady had no original sin, and no effects therefrom, she suffered no labor pains in giving birth to Christ. It all seems very clear andlogical to me, but I know many Catholics still seem to baulk at thisassertion. This is not merely myconclusion or even simply that of some holy priests I know, but in fact it isthe position held by the greatest Fathers and Doctors of the Church!

Beforewe turn to these most trustworthy sources for the constant teaching of Holy Mother Church let me first turn youagain to the infallible word of God, which clearly and evidently teaches thisvery fact that Mary was even prophesied to bring forth Christ without labor pains:

“Before she travailed, she brought forth; before herpain came, she was delivered of a man child.” -Isaias 66:7

Thisverse has always been applied by the Church to our Lady, and I believe isincontrovertible evidence of this teaching, but for those who may yet beskeptical let me give you the argument made for this teaching by the greatestgenius, philosopher, and theologian the Church has ever seen that great AngelicDoctor Saint Thomas Aquinas:

The Summa Theologiae

Tertia Pars

Q. 35 - Christ's Nativity
a. 6 - Whether Christ was born without His Mother suffering?

Objection 1. It would seem that Christ was not born withoutHis Mother suffering. For just as man's death was a result of the sin of ourfirst parents, according to Gn. 2:17: "In what day soever ye shall eat, yeshall [Vulg.: 'thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt] die"; so were the painsof childbirth, according to Gn. 3:16: "In sorrow shalt thou bring forthchildren." But Christ was willing to undergo death. Therefore for the samereason it seems that His birth should have been with pain.

Objection 2. Further, the end is proportionate to thebeginning. But Christ ended His life in pain, according to Is. 53:4:"Surely . . . He hath carried our sorrows." Therefore it seems thatHis nativity was not without the pains of childbirth.

Objection 3. Further, in the book on the birth of ourSaviour [Protevangelium Jacobi xix, xx] it is related that midwives werepresent at Christ's birth; and they would be wanted by reason of the mother'ssuffering pain. Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin suffered pain ingiving birth to her Child.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Serm. de Nativ. [Supposititious), addressinghimself to the Virgin-Mother: "In conceiving thou wast all pure, in givingbirth thou wast without pain."

I answer that, The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening thepassage from the womb. Now it has been said above (28, 2, Replies toobjections), that Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and,consequently, without opening the passage. Consequently there was no pain inthat birth, as neither was there any corruption; on the contrary, there wasmuch joy therein for that God-Man "was born into the world,"according to Is. 35:1,2: "Like the lily, it shall bud forth and blossom,and shall rejoice with joy and praise."

Reply to Objection 1. The pains of childbirth in the woman follow from themingling of the sexes. Wherefore (Genesis 3:16) after the words, "insorrow shalt thou bring forth children," the following are added:"and thou shalt be under thy husband's power." But, as Augustine says(Serm. de Assumpt. B. Virg., [Supposititious), from this sentence we mustexclude the Virgin-Mother of God; who, "because she conceived Christwithout the defilement of sin, and without the stain of sexual mingling,therefore did she bring Him forth without pain, without violation of her virginalintegrity, without detriment to the purity of her maidenhood." Christ,indeed, suffered death, but through His own spontaneous desire, in order toatone for us, not as a necessary result of that sentence, for He was not adebtor unto death.

Reply to Objection 2. As "by His death" Christ "destroyed ourdeath" [Preface of the Mass in Paschal-time, so by His pains He freed usfrom our pains; and so He wished to die a painful death. But the mother's painsin childbirth did not concern Christ, who came to atone for our sins. Andtherefore there was no need for His Mother to suffer in giving birth.

Reply to Objection 3. We are told (Luke 2:7) that the Blessed Virgin herself"wrapped up in swaddling clothes" the Child whom she had broughtforth, "and laid Him in a manger." Consequently the narrative of thisbook, which is apocryphal, is untrue. Wherefore Jerome says (Adv. Helvid. iv):"No midwife was there, no officious women interfered. She was both motherand midwife. 'With swaddling clothes,' says he, 'she wrapped up the child, andlaid Him in a manger.'" These words prove the falseness of the apocryphalravings.

You will note the close connection between this important teaching and the perpetual virginity of Mary which again is a Dogma of the Catholic faith and must be assented to by all the faithful or you cannot be saved:

"If anyone does not properly and truly confess in accord with the holy Fathers, that the holy Mother of God and ever virgin and immaculate Mary in the earliest of the ages conceived of the Holy Spirit without seed, namely, God the Word Himself specifically and truly, who was born of God the Father before all ages, and that she incorruptibly bore [Him], her virginity remaining indestructible even after His birth, let him be condemned."
-Pope Saint Martin I, The Lateran Council, Canon 3, 649AD (DS 256)

But Saint Thomas, and for that matter Pope Saint Martin, here are merely teaching what had always been taught, and lest anyone think this was an invention of the middle ages see the following for evidence against this fanciful notion:

"Mary's virginity was hidden from the prince of this world; so was her childbearing, and so was the death of the Lord. All these three trumpet-tongued secrets were brought to pass in the deep silence of God."
-Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop and Father of the Church, Epistle to the Ephesians, 19; 107 AD

"Who loves you is amazed and who would understand is silent and confused, because he cannot probe the Mother who gave birth in her virginity. If it is too great to be clarified with words the disputants ought not on that account cross swords with your Son.”
-Saint Ephraim the Syrian, Father and Doctor of the Church, Songs of Praise 1, 2; 306-373 AD

"Believe in the Son of God, the Word before all the ages, who was...in these last days, for your sake, made Son of Man, born of the Virgin Mary in an indescribable and stainless way,-for there is no stain where God is and whence salvation comes..."
-Saint Gregory Nazianzen; Bishop, Father, and Doctor of the Church; Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:45; 381 AD

"Though coming in the form of man, yet not in every thing is He subject to the laws of man's nature; for while His being born of a woman tells of human nature; virginity becoming capable of childbirth betokens something above man. Of Him then His mother's burden was light, the birth immaculate, the delivery without pain, the nativity without defilement, neither beginning from wanton desire, nor brought to pass with sorrow. For as she who by her guilt engrafted death into our nature, was condemned to bring forth in trouble, it was meet that she who brought life into the world should accomplish her delivery with joy."
-Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Homily on the Nativity, 388 AD

“So far as He was born of woman, His birth was in accordance with the laws of parturition, while so far as He had no father, His birth was above the nature of generation: and in that it was at the usual time (for He was born on the completion of the ninth month when the tenth was just beginning), His birth was in accordance with the laws of parturition, while in that it was painless it was above the laws of generation. For, as pleasure did not precede it, pain did not follow it, according to the prophet who says, Before she travailed, she brought forth, and again, before her pain came she was delivered of a man-child (Isaiah 66:7). The Son of God incarnate, therefore, was born of her, not a divinely-inspired man but God incarnate.... But just as He who was conceived kept her who conceived still virgin, in like manner also He who was born preserved her virginity intact, only passing through her and keeping her closed (Ezekiel 44:2).”
-Saint John Damascene; Bishop, Father, and Doctor of the Church; On the Orthodox Faith, IV, 14; 676-754 AD

“How can death claim as its prey this truly blessed one, who listened to God's word in humility, and was filled with the Spirit, conceiving the Father's gift through the archangel, bearing without concupiscence or the co-operation of man the Person of the Divine Word, who fills all things, bringing Him forth without the pains of childbirth, being wholly united to God?... It was fitting that the body of her, who preserved her virginity intact in childbirth, should be kept from corruption even after death. She who nursed her Creator as an infant at her breast, had a right to be in the divine tabernacles.... It was fitting that she who saw her Son die on the cross, and received in her heart the sword of pain which she had not felt in childbirth, should gaze upon Him seated next to the Father.”
-Saint John Damascene; Bishop, Father, and Doctor of the Church; Second Homily on the Dormition of the Mother of God; 676-754 AD

It is then clear that this teaching is ancient and universal and following the guide of Saint Vincent of Lerins we can see what this means:

"In the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors." -Saint Vincent of Lérins, Father of the Church, The Commonitorium

But now I would like to return to that last point made by Saint John Damascene, the great Doctor of the Dogma of the Assumption, and that is of the suffering of our Lady on Calvary. I have heard it suggested, particularly by women, that it is more beautiful to consider our Lady suffering the pains of childbirth, because otherwise I suppose they have nothing to look to in their own sufferings of labor and otherwise in their life. This is, however, to miss a most important point of Catholic Theology and Mariology: Mary did not suffer in giving birth to her Son's physical body, but rather she suffering in giving birth to His mystical body, which is the Church!

Mary's "labor pains" in giving birth to the Church took place upon Calvary. Where the all spotless and immaculate Virgin Mary the Mother of God saw her divine Son our Lord Jesus Christ, the Immaculate Lamb, suffer the most terrible death that has ever and will ever take place, unto the remission of the uncountable sins of mankind who are yet so ungrateful. There she saw Him abandoned by even His closest friends, save one, and striped of everything even his very flesh. Here it was that our Lady suffered pains unimaginable to us and certainly, had she not been sustained by the grace of God, it would have caused her to die of sorrow.

We must then at all times and in all places have no tolerance for blasphemy of any kind, and we ought to pray and do penance for the conversion of those who blaspheme God, His mother, His saints, or any other holy thing.

"Tell me, blasphemer, of what country are you? Allow me to tell you, you belong to Hell...What is the language of the damned?-----blasphemy. And they blasphemed the God of Heaven because of their pains and wounds. What do you gain, my brethren, by these your blasphemies? you gain no honor by them. Blasphemers are abhorred even by their blasphemous companions. Do you gain any temporal advantage?...What pleasure do you derive from blaspheming God? The pleasure of the damned; and that moment of madness past, what pain and bitterness does it not leave in your heart? Resolve to rid yourself of this vice in any event. Take care, if you do not abandon it now, that you will not carry it with you to death, as has happened to so many who have died with blasphemy in their mouths." -Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Ibid

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. " -Genesis 3:15

An Open Letter to All Catholic Women

2011-12-16T22:50:00.000-05:00

My dear Sisters in Jesus andMary,

I write this letter to youbecause of the deep brotherly charity I have for you in my heart. I am not writing to condemn or to blame, butrather to enlighten you to what, until now, I suspect the vast majority of youwere simply unaware. This topic is arather delicate one, but one which must be spoken about for your sake and formine and for the rest of your brothers in Jesus and Mary.

I have been pondering writing somethingof this sort for quite some time, and the ideas that I hope to express in ithave been in my thoughts and prayers for many more years before that. I have hesitated until now because I have hadsome difficulty forming in my mind what I would say and how best to say it toyou. But finally I have been so deeplymoved that I felt I could wait no longer but must write this whether or not Ican do it well.

What prompted me to end myprocrastination was a story I most unwittingly stumbled across that deeplysaddened me. This story dealt with theclear loss of innocence of a famous young actress who my youngest sister grewup watching on a children’s TV show. Nowhaving “come of age” she has now apparently on several occasions appeared atbig media events dressed, or should I say undressed, to a most scandalousdegree, for any woman, let alone a girl of her age.

Now, I have read and even seenmany instances of the loss of innocence and the horrible abuse of the young,and especially of young girls, in our modern culture and especially in themedia. I suppose I have long been verysensitive to this subject because I have two younger sisters, and I believealso that our Lady has put some of her own tenderness in my heart for suchthings. And I suppose one might ask whydoes this one instance matter so much as opposed to the others (many of whichwere much worse)? And I say not that Iam wounded in my heart for this one young girl alone who has been sucked awayinto the modern culture, but rather for all women and what has been done toyou, is being done to you, and sadly I fear will continue unless Godly menstand up to defend you.

What is this I am saying has beendone to you? You who share the same sexas the all spotless and highly honored ever Blessed Virgin Mary have been madeobjects of lust for godless men and a stumbling block for men trying to livechastity in their state in life. Youhave been fed the lies of Feminists which were founded upon the thinking ofnone other than Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and his Communist Philosophy, which hasno other origin than from the deepest depths of hell.

Many, if not most, good Catholicwomen are aware of the errors of Feminism in general, but far fewer are awareof these errors in the specifics. Whilethey reject Feminism as an ideology they yet are so enveloped in the culturethat was produced by it that they are yet unwitting victims to it.

One of the greatest tragedies, inmy opinion, is the nearly total and complete loss of true feminine modesty indress and behavior. This then is what Iwant to speak to you about and to ask you to please read what I have to say anddo so with an open mind and heart and in a prayerful spirit. And again please remember that I am writingthis out of charity for you my sisters and for our brothers in Jesus and Mary.

I would like to begin with thewords of the glorious Apostle Saint Paul:

“Let yourmodesty be known to all men.” (Philippians 4:5)

How I wish these words wereheeded today! For we live in a time thatI dare say is more awash in perversion and immodesty than any other time inhistory with the possible exception of the city of Rome during the reign of theEmperor Nero. The state we findourselves in today was prophesied by our Lady at Fatima to the children and isrecounted by little Blessed Jacinta Marto as follows:

"Wars are apunishment from God for sin...Certain fashions will be introduced that willoffend Our Lord very much...More souls go to Hell because of sins of the fleshthan for any other reason."

Our Lady also said that if peopledid not stop offending our Lord a more terrible war than WWI, which was justending, would break out during the reign of Pope Pius XI. This was in 1917 and what followed was the“Roaring 20s” and the introduction of new immodest fashions for women and the riseof the Feminist movement. True to ourLady’s word because we not only continued, but even increased, our offendingGod the world was scourged with the most terrible war the world has everknown. And still we did not repent. Just a little over a decade after the end ofthe war came one of the most destructive decades to western civilizations inits entire history.

The sexual revolution of the1960s accompanied by an unbelievable increase in the distribution of dangerousmind altering drugs and the introduction of Rock and Roll have shaped the worldwe live in today. Unfortunately, it wasjust at this time that the Catholic Church itself began to fall into a mostdire crisis that prompted Pope Paul VI to say the following disturbing wordsin an Address to the Lombard Seminary in Rome on the 7^th of December1968:

“The Churchfinds herself in an hour of anxiety, a disturbed period of self-criticism, orwhat would even better be called self-destruction. It is an interior upheaval,acute and complicated, which nobody expected after the Council. It is almost asif the Church were attacking itself. We looked forward to a flowering, a sereneexpansion of conceptions which matured in the great sessions of the Council.But one must notice above all the sorrowful aspect. It is as if the Church weredestroying herself.”

One wonders if this comment wasnot in direct reference to the complete rejection, in some cases of entireBishop’s conferences, around the world to his infallible teaching on moralitycontained in his Encyclical Humanae Vitae, which was published earlier thatyear.

It was just then at the criticalmoment when the unchanging teaching of the Catholic Church on modesty andchastity was so very needed that it ceased being preached by her Bishops andPriests. We then have been wallowing indarkness for more than four decades, and we are a generation born of ageneration of Catholics who did not receive the Catholic faith, or at least notwithout great adulteration. Certainlythe devil knew what he was doing when he hit us as hard as he could at ourlowest point.

It is then no wonder that youngCatholic women do not know what true modesty is, and nor for that matter doyoung Catholic men know what true custody of the eyes is, and neither know whatit takes to live out true Catholic chastity according to their state of life intoday’s day and age?

Why is this so important? Because life is at stake, and not thispassing one but eternal life! While itis true that men must pay the penalty for their sins of impurity, it is just astrue that women too must pay for the sins committed by men that they lead intosin because of their immodest dress and/or behavior. And so many young women today, even manyCatholic women, are simply unaware that they are leading many young men intosin because of their immodesty. Andworse this often happens even in Church at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass! The great Doctor of the Church and Patriarchof Constantinople Saint John Chrysostom did not mince words when it came tothis very thing:

"You carryyour snare everywhere and spread your nets in all places. You allege that younever invited others to sin. You did not indeed, by your words, but you havedone so by your dress and your deportment. When you have made another sin in his heart, how can you be innocent?Tell me, whom does this world condemn? Whom do judges punish? Those who drinkpoison or those who prepare it and administer the fatal potion? You haveprepared the abominable cup, you have given the death dealing drink, and youare more criminal than are those who poison the body; you murder not the bodybut the soul. And it is not to enemies you do this, nor are you urged on by anyimaginary necessity, nor provoked by injury, but out of foolish vanity andpride."

Indeed, as our Lord said:

“And fear ye notthem that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear himthat can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matt. 10:28)

Again, I will say that I do notcondemn for I believe there are very few who knowingly perpetrate this terribleevil, but there are innumerable young women totally ignorant of the illicitnessof their dress and actions which are so dangerous to the purity of young men. And though because of their ignorance theirculpability will be less there will yet be a price to pay.

Catholic women today must notallow themselves to be ignorant any longer. You have a strict duty in charity to be your “brother’s keeper” andalways dress and act in a manner befitting your dignity as daughters of Jesusand Mary. Just as men have a strict dutyin charity to protect their sisters in Christ from any dishonor or evil men whoseek to ensnare them.

And before you begin to attackwhat I am saying as merely my own opinion please read what one of our HolyFathers had to say on this very subject:

"One cannotsufficiently deplore the blindness of so many women of every age and condition;made foolish by desire to please, they do not see to what a degree the indecency of their clothing shocks every honest man, and offends God. Most ofthem would formerly have blushed for those toilettes as for a grave faultagainst Christian modesty; now it does not suffice for them to exhibit them onthe public thoroughfares; they do not fear to cross the threshold of thechurches, to assist at the Holy sacrifice of the Mass, and even to bear theseducing food of shameful passions to the Eucharistic Table where one receivesthe heavenly Author of purity. And We speak not of those exotic and barbarousdances recently imported into fashionable circles, one more shocking than theother; one cannot imagine anything more suitable for banishing all that remainsof modesty."

These are the words of PopeBenedict XV in his Encyclical: Sacra Propediem, which was written in 1921! And have things gotten any better in theintervening time? I believe decidedlynot. And why has this been so? Why has modestly been universally abandonedby even the majority of good Catholic women? The Venerable Pope Pius XII explains how this has come to pass:

"Numbers ofbelieving and pious women in accepting to follow certain bold fashions, breakdown, by their example, the resistance of many other women to such fashions,which may become for them the cause of spiritual ruin. As long as theseprovocative styles remain identified with women of doubtful virtue, good womendo not dare to follow them; but once these styles have been accepted by womenof good reputation, decent women soon follow their example, and are carriedalong by the tide into possible disaster." (May 22, 1941)

"The goodof our soul is more important than that of our body; and we have to prefer thespiritual welfare of our neighbor to our bodily comforts. If a certain kind ofdress constitutes a grave and proximate occasion of sin, and endangers thesalvation of your soul and others, it is your duty to give it up. O Christian mothers, if you knew what afuture of anxieties and perils, of ill-guarded shame you prepare for your sonsand daughters, imprudently getting them accustomed to live scantily dressed andmaking them lose the sense of modesty, you would be ashamed of yourselves andyou would dread the harm you are making of yourselves, the harm which you arecausing these children, whom Heaven has entrusted to you to be brought up asChristians…Now many girls do not see anything wrong with following certainshameless styles (fashions) like so many sheep. They would surely blush if theycould only guess the impressions they make and the feelings they evoke (arouse)in those who see them." (Speech given to Catholic Young Women's Group inItaly 17 July 1954)

Believe me when I say that I havetears in my eyes as I read these words of a successor of Saint Peter. It is an indescribable tragedy what has happenedto western civilization, which was founded upon the great Catholic culture thatonce permeated it. All I can think of islittle Jacinta weeping and doing penance, more terrible than what many grownmen could endure, for these offenses being perpetrated against the Sacred andImmaculate Hearts, and I weep with her.

Most fitting words on thissubject can be found written by the glorious and amazing Saint Anthony MaryClaret (1807-70) whose miracles and holiness are of the highest order, andwhose purity was so great that for the last years of his life the BlessedSacrament remained constantly present within him between communions each day:

"Now,observe, my daughter, the contrast between the luxurious dress of many women,and the raiment and adornments of Jesus. Tell me: what relation do their fineshoes bear to the spikes in Jesus' Feet? The rings on their hands to the nailswhich perforated His? The fashionable coiffure to the Crown of Thorns? Thepainted face to That covered with bruises? Shoulders exposed by the low-cutgown to His, all striped with Blood? Ah, but there is a marked likeness betweenthese worldly women and the Jews who, incited by the Devil, scourged Our Lord!At the hour of such a women's death, I think Jesus will be heard saying: 'Cujusest imago haec... of whom is she the image?' And the reply will be: 'Demonii...of the Devil!' Then He will say: 'Let her who has followed the Devil's fashionsbe handed over to him; and to God, those who have imitated the modesty of Jesusand Mary'."

What then is this modesty ofJesus and Mary?! It is my great desireto tell you this! And I pray always that you may truly live it, and that we allmight live chastity according to our state in life.

In the Marian Year of 1954Venerable Pope Pius XII directed the Bishops throughout the world to "takeaction against this most serious plague of immodest fashions". He even went so far as to asked the Sacred Congregation of the Councilto make a forceful appeal to all Catholics, but especially those in authority,to "leave no stone unturned which can help remedy the situation."

He then republished theInstruction on Modesty in Dress previously published by his predecessor, PiusXI, who had asked this same Sacred Congregation to publish a standard ofmodesty in dress in 1930:

By virtue of thesupreme apostolate which he wields over the Universal Church by Divine Will,our Most Holy Father Pope Pius XI has never ceased to inculcate, both verballyand by his writings, the words of St. Paul (1 Tim. xi,9-10), namely,"Women ... adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety ... andprofessing godliness with good works."

Very often, whenoccasion arose, the same Supreme Pontiff condemned emphatically the immodestfashion of dress adopted by Catholic women and girls -- which fashion not onlyoffends the dignity of women and against her adornment, but conduces to thetemporal ruin of the women and girls, and, what is still worse, to theireternal ruin, miserably dragging down others in their fall. It is notsurprising, therefore, that all Bishops and other ordinaries, as is the duty ofministers of Christ, should in their own dioceses have unanimously opposedtheir depraved licentiousness and promiscuity of manners, often bearing withfortitude the derision and mockery leveled against them for this cause.

Therefore thisSacred Council, which watches over the discipline of clergy and people, whilecordially commending the action of the Venerable Bishops, most emphaticallyexhorts them to persevere in their attitude and increase their activitiesinsofar as their strength permits, in order that this unwholesome disease bedefinitely uprooted from human society.

In order tofacilitate the desired effect, this Sacred Congregation, by the mandate of theMost Holy Father, has decreed as follows:

Exhortation toThose in Authority

1. The parishpriest, and especially the preacher, when occasion arises, should, according tothe words of the Apostle Paul (2 Tim. iv, 2), insist, argue exhort and commandthat feminine garb be based on modesty and womanly ornament be a defense ofvirtue. Let them likewise admonish parents to cause their daughters to ceasewearing indecorous dress.

2. Parents,conscious of their grave obligations toward the education, especially religiousand moral, to their offspring, should see to it that their daughters aresolidly instructed, from earliest childhood, in Christian doctrine; and theythemselves should assiduously inculcate in their souls, by word and example,love for the virtues of modesty and chastity; and since their family shouldfollow the example of the Holy Family, they must rule in such a manner that allits members, reared within the walls of the home, should find reason andincentive to love and preserve modesty.

3. Let parentskeep their daughters away from public gymnastic games and contests; but iftheir daughters are compelled to attend such exhibitions, let them see thatthey are fully and modestly dressed. Let them never permit their daughters todon immodest garb.

4. Superioressesand teachers in schools for girls must do their utmost to instill love ofmodesty in the hearts of maidens confided to their care and urge them to dressmodestly.

5. SaidSuperioresses and teachers must not receive in their colleges and schoolsimmodestly dressed girls, and should not even make an exception in the case ofmothers of pupils. If, after being admitted, girls persist in dressingimmodestly, such pupils should be dismissed.

6. Nuns, incompliance with the Letter dated August 23, 1928, by the Sacred Congregation ofReligious, must not receive in their colleges, schools, oratories or recreationgrounds, or, if once admitted, tolerate girls who are not dressed withChristian modesty; said Nuns, in addition, should do their utmost so that lovefor holy chastity and Christian modesty may become deeply rooted in the heartsof their pupils.

7. It isdesirable that pious organizations of women be founded, which by their counsel,example and propaganda should combat the wearing of apparel unsuited toChristian modesty, and should promote purity of customs and modesty of dress.

8. In the piousassociations of women those who dress immodestly should not be admitted tomembership; but if, perchance, they are received, and after having beenadmitted, fall again into their error, they should be dismissed forthwith.

9. Maidens andwomen dressed immodestly are to be debarred from Holy Communion and from actingas sponsors at the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation; further, if theoffense be extreme, they may even be forbidden to enter the church.

Donato CardinalSbaretti, Prefect

Congregation ofthe Council

Rome, January12, 1930

The standard for modest in dress,which was then put rather succinctly by the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation in1956, Pietro Cardinal Ciriaci, is this:

"A dress cannot be called decent whichis cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which doesnot cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyondthe knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper."(Imprimatur, 24 September 1956)

On 21 August 1954 the Prefect hadalready said the following in a letter:

"Everyoneknows that during the summer months particularly, things are seen here andthere, which are certain to prove offensive to anyone who has retained somerespect and regard for Christian modesty. On the beaches, in country resorts,almost everywhere, on the streets of cities and towns, in public and privateplaces, and, indeed, often even in buildings dedicated to God, an unworthy andindecent mode of dress has prevailed. Becauseof this, the young particularly, whose minds are easily bent towards vice, areexposed to the extreme danger of losing their innocence, which is, by far, themost beautiful adornment of mind and body. Feminine adornment, if it can becalled adornment, feminine clothing, if that can be called clothing whichcontains nothing to protect either the body or modesty, are at times of such anature, that they seem to serve lewdness rather than modesty . . . Well did theancient poet say of this matter, 'Vice necessarily follows upon public nudity.'"

This point of going to the beachis one that is hotly contested by many young women I have spoken with, even ofmany Catholics. They will even agreewith these rules set by the Church about modestly in dress, but will thencompletely illogically say something like: “…well except at the beach ofcourse”. But if they really stopped andthought about what they were saying they would realize how ludicrous what theyjust said sounded. If certain dress isnot modest… then it is not modest anywhere or at any time. The thought experiment I have attempted to workmy little sister through in this regard goes as follows:

Q: “You wouldn’twalk down the street in your underwear would you?”

R: “No, ofcourse not.”

Q: “How reallydifferent is a bikini than your underwear? It covers the same amount of you body?”

R: “…well…it’snot the same…”

Ah, but it is the same. If it is immodest and indecent to walk downthe street in your underwear then it is immodest and indecent to do so in abathing suit. I don’t see how anyone canargue this except that they have become so accustomed to this terrible evilthat they don’t see it for what it really is.

Ultimately, I think the bestguide for women to live true Catholic modesty is to imitate the modesty of ourLady. The following list of principlesfor “Marylike” dress I think are a good rule to follow since they are not inthe spirit of doing as much as one can get away with and still “technically beingmodest”, but rather truly seeking to live in the spirit of “Marylike” modesty:

1."Marylike" means modesty without compromise -- "like Mary,"Christ's pure and spotless Mother.

2. Marylikedresses have sleeves extending to the wrists; and skirts reaching the ankles.

3. Marylikedresses require full and loose coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders, andback; the cut-out about the neck must not exceed "two fingers breadthunder the pit of the throat" and a similar breadth around the back of theneck.

4. Marylikedresses also do not admit as modest coverage transparent fabrics -- laces,nets, organdy, nylons, etc. -- unless sufficient backing is added. Fabrics suchas laces, nets, organdy may be moderately used as trimmings only.

5. Marylikedresses avoid the improper use of flesh-colored fabrics.

6. Marylikedresses conceal rather than reveal the figure of the wearer; they do notemphasize, unduly, parts of the body.

7. Marylikedresses provide full coverage, even after jacket, cape or stole are removed.

8. Marylikefashions are designed to conceal as much of the body as possible, rather thanreveal. This would automatically eliminate such fashions as slacks, jeans,shorts, culottes, tight sweaters, sheer blouses, and sleeveless dresses; etc.The Marylike standards are a guide to instill a "sense of modesty." Agirl or woman who follows these, and looks up to Mary as her ideal and model,will have no problem with modesty in dress. She will not be an occasion of sinor source of embarrassment or shame to others.

I understand that all of thismight very well be nearly impossible for you to accept. Believe me I understand where you are comingfrom living in the culture we live in today. But please prayerfully consider what I have said. And I also understand those who accept what Ihave said, but still cannot go out tomorrow and buy an entire new wardrobe ofmodest clothes, because even if you had the money where would you buy them? But if anyone is in this position I put youin contact with a company where you actually can buy quality modest clothing.

Also I would like to addressthose, like my little sister, who are terrified that if they do not dress in acertain (immodest) way they will not be attractive to young men. But please let me tell you on behalf of manygood Catholic young men I know that this is not true. You must believe me that if you dress as Ihave suggested above with irreproachable modesty that you will be veryattractive, that is, to all the right young men who are the good and virtuousones. These are the men who are moreinterested in learning about you and your family and loving your beautiful souland not lusting after you body. Theseare the men who will be devoted husbands and fathers and who will defend youwith their lives. These are the men whowill do their very best to be true help mates that will struggle alongside youunto the salvation of your soul, his own, and your children. Do not settle for less than you deserve asblessed daughters of Jesus and Mary! There are good men out there, and trust me that just as modesty willattract all the right men, immodesty will repulse the very same men.

I pray for you all from thebottom of my heart filled with brotherly charity for you.

I would then like to concludethis letter to you my dear Sisters in Jesus and Mary with a short work by SaintAlphonsus Maria de Liguori, the Doctor of Moral Theology, on the Chastity ofour Lady, which is wonderful material for mediation.

The Virtues of the Blessed Virgin

by St. Alphonsus Liguori, Bishop and Doctor of the Church

Mary's Chastity

After the fall of Adam, man'ssenses became rebellious to reason. As a consequence, chastity is the mostdifficult of all the virtues to practice. Saint Augustine says: "Of allinner conflicts the most arduous are concerned with chastity. These battles areof daily occurrence, but victory is rare." May God be praised eternally,however, because in Mary he has given us such a shining example of this virtue."Mary is with good reason called the Virgin of virgins," says SaintAlbert the Great. "Without the advice or example of others, she was thefirst to consecrate her virginity to God." In this way, she led to God allwho imitated her virginity, as David had foretold: After her shall virgins bebrought...into the temple of the king (Ps 44:15). Without advice and withoutany example! Saint Bernard says: "O Virgin, who taught you to please Godby your virginity and to lead an angel's life on earth?" Saint Sophroniusreplies: "God chose a pure virgin for his mother, that she might be anexample of chastity to everybody." That is why Saint Ambrose calls Mary"the standard-bearer of virginity."

Because of Mary's purity the HolySpirit declared that she is as beautiful as the turtledove: Your cheeks arebeautiful as the turtledove's (Cant 1:9). "A most pure turtledove" iswhat Aponius calls her. For the same reason, Mary is also called a lily: As thelily among the thorns, so is my love among the daughters (Cant 2:2). On thispassage Denis the Carthusian remarks: "Mary was compared to a lily amongthorns because all other virgins were thorns, either to themselves or toothers; but the Blessed Virgin was not so, either to herself or toothers." She inspired everybody who saw her with chaste thoughts. SaintThomas confirms this when he says that the beauty of the Blessed Virgin incitedto chastity all who looked at her. Saint Jerome maintains that Saint Josephremained a virgin as a result of living with Mary. Writing against the hereticHelvidius who denied Mary's virginity, Saint Jerome said: "You say thatMary did not remain a virgin. I say that not only did she remain a virgin, butthat even Joseph preserved his virginity through Mary." Saint Gregory ofNyssa says that the Blessed Virgin loved chastity so much, that to preserve itshe would have been willing to renounce even the dignity of Mother of God. Thisseems evident from her reply to the archangel: How shall this happen, since Ido not know man? (Lk 1:34). And from the words she added then: Be it done to meaccording to your word (Lk 1:38), signifying that she gave her consent on thecondition that, as the angel had assured her, she should become a mother onlyby the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.

Saint Ambrose says that"anyone who preserves chastity is an angel; anyone who loses it is adevil." Our Lord assures us that those who are chaste become angels:They...shall be as the angels of God in heaven (Mt 22:30). But the unchastebecome hateful to God, like devils. Saint Remigius used to say that themajority of adults are lost by this vice.

We have quoted Saint Augustine assaying that a victory is very seldom gained in this combat. Why is this?Because the means by which the victory may be gained are very seldom used.These means are threefold, according to Bellarmine and the masters of the spirituallife: fasting, the avoidance of dangerous occasions of sin, and prayer. 1. Byfasting we mean especially mortification of the eyes and the appetite. Althoughour Blessed Lady was filled with divine grace, she nevertheless practicedmortification of the eyes, according to Saint Epiphanius and Saint JohnDamascene. Her glances were always modest and she never gazed fixedly atanyone. She was so unassuming, even from childhood, that everyone who saw herwas charmed by her reserve. Saint Luke remarks that when she went to visitElizabeth, she went with haste (Lk 1:39), in order to avoid the public gaze.Philibert relates that it was revealed to a hermit named Felix that as far asher food was concerned, when she was a baby she took milk only once a day.Saint Gregory of Tours maintains that she fasted throughout her life. SaintBonaventure explains this: "Mary would never have found so much grace ifshe had not been moderate in her meals, for grace and gluttony do not gotogether." In short, Mary was mortified in everything, so that it was trueto say of her: My hands dripped with myrrh (Cant 5:5).

2. The second means is avoidanceof the occasions of sin: He that is aware of the snares shall be secure (Prov11:15). Saint Philip Neri coined the expression: "In the war of thesenses, cowards conquer." By cowards he means those who flee fromdangerous occasions. Mary fled as much as possible from the gaze of men.Remember Saint Luke's remark that, in going to visit Elizabeth, Mary went withhaste into the hill country. One author calls attention to the fact that OurLady left Elizabeth before Saint John was born: And Mary remained with herabout three months and returned to her own house. Now Elizabeth's time wasfulfilled that she should be delivered, and she brought forth a son (Lk1:56-57). Why did Mary not wait for Saint John's birth? Because she wanted toavoid the hubbub and excitement that usually accompany such an event.

3. The third means is prayer. TheWise Man said: And as I knew that I could not otherwise be continent except Godgave it...I went to the Lord and besought him (Wis 8:21). Mary revealed toSaint Elizabeth of Hungary that she did not acquire any virtue without effortand without continual prayer. Saint John Damascene calls our Immaculate Mother"a lover of purity." She cannot endure those who are content to beunchaste. And if anybody appeals to her to be delivered from unchastity shewill certainly help him. All he has to do is call upon her confidently. TheVenerable John of Ávila used to say that many have conquered impure temptationsmerely through devotion to Mary Immaculate.

O Mary, most pure dove, how manyare now in hell on account of impurity! Most gracious Lady, obtain for us thegrace always to fly to you in our temptations, and always to invoke your name,pleading: "Mary, Mary, help us!" Amen.

A Catholic Ruler is the Key to a Christian Land

2011-11-19T11:47:00.001-05:00

A Catholic Ruler is the Key to a Christian Land:

Saint Augustine of Canterbury

and the Conversion ofKing Saint Ethelbert

England was first reached by the RomanEmpire some sixty years before the birth of our Lord, by Caius Julius Caesar. The initial settlement of the Island withRomans, however, began after the Emperor Claudius conquered it, along with theIsles of Orkney, 105 years later.[1] Thuswhen Christianity began to spread throughout the empire it also spread toBritain. When the time of thepersecution of Diocletian came there were many Roman Christians in England whosuffered and died planting the seeds of faith for future generations of Englishpeople. One of the most famous of thesewas Saint Alban who was martyred in the year 301.[2]Following the days of the persecution there was peace for some years until theoutbreak of the Arian Heresy. At thebeginning of the fifth century the Roman Empire fell and shortly after therewas a mass exodus of nearly all Romans from Britain, which included most of theChristians as well.[3]

Britain, without the Roman Legions toprotect it, was then cast into darkness by plagues of marauding barbarianscoming in from every side of the island. Britain was again a pagan land, though several missionary journeys weremade to preach the gospel to the heathens and minister to the few Christiansthat still remained there. While theselaid the groundwork for its later conversion, there was not lasting andwidespread success. In the year 596 PopeSaint Gregory the Great sent Saint Augustine of Canterbury along with somemonks to preach the Catholic faith to the inhabitants of the Island that,because of his efforts, would one day be known as the Island of Saints.[4]

Though of course Saint Augustine hadthe aid of almighty God and the backing of the Holy Father, still there seemsto be one crucial factor of his success among the Britons. This key to winning over Britain wasAugustine’s first winning over the pagan King Ethelbert, who initially onlygave his approbation for the carrying out of missionary work, but who wouldeventually convert. In 597 Augustine metwith the King for the first time and preached the Gospel to him and explainedhis plans for his missionary work in Britain. Augustine impressed the King with his preaching, but he was unwilling togive up the old pagan ways of his people, yet he still granted permission forAugustine to preach in the very city where he resided: Kent, which would laterbecome the first Diocese in Britain.[5]This was a monumental victory for Augustine at the very outset of his work inBritain. He was then able to move aroundfairly freely and preach the faith to the people and win many to it. This story is strikingly similar to anotherthat happened a century earlier on the island just to the West when another missionarywas sent to convert a pagan people. Thismissionary was Saint Patrick and the island was Ireland. He was able to have similar success inconverting that island after receiving the approbation of the pagan Irish HighKing Laoghaire who preferred Saint Patrick’s preaching to that of the Arians,but would not himself give up his pagan beliefs.[6]

While Laoghaire never converted,however, King Ethelbert did convert to the Catholic Faith at the urging ofSaint Augustine. The conversion of theBritish King was a boost to the Catholic Faith in the Kingdom since now bothsecular and ecclesiastical authorities were working in consort to rid the landof paganism and institute the Catholic Faith. It was during this time that Pope Gregory wrote a letter to the King inwhich he compared this new Christian Ruler to the Emperor Constantine and spokeof how beneficial it was to have a ruler that professes the faith.[7]This too even more profoundly parallels what happened a century earlier just tothe south in Gaul when Saint Remigius converted the pagan king Clovis. Unfortunately, the parallel is similar in a darkway as well for in both instances upon the death of these good Christian Kingstheir respective Kingdoms immediately plunged back into paganism. Yet in both cases these lands would again berestored to the faith by later Christian rulers.

Allof the above (not otherwise cited) is related by Saint Bede the Venerable inwhat is considered his greatest work: History of the English Church andPeople.[8]Bede was a prolific writer in the history of the Catholic Church, and though hewrote mostly commentaries on Sacred Scripture, because of his aforementionedwork he was given the title “Father of English History” by Pope Leo XIII onNovember 13^th, 1899 when he declared him a Doctor of the Church.[9] Bede was a monk in England living under therule of Saint Benedict during the late 7^th Century and well into theearly 8^th Century after Christ.[10]He never left the confines of the shores of Britain, and thus had to rely onextant documents available to him at the time for his information of theoutside world.[11]

Warren Carroll also covers this periodof time of the sending of Saint Augustine of Canterbury to England by PopeSaint Gregory the Great.[12] Itis interesting to note that his treatment of the subject is very similar tothat of Saint Bede, but Carroll does not even refer to the great Father ofEnglish History. Instead he relies principallyupon the work of F. Holmes Dudden[13]and Margaret Deanesly[14],both Anglicans. These authors seem tohave been in possession of more information than Bede as Carroll draws fromthem a number of details not given by the Saint. One of these details is that the wife of KingEthelbert, whom Bede does not mention, was the great-granddaughter of King Clovisof the Franks.[15] It is probable that she had a similar impacton her husband as did her great-grandmother Saint Clotilda. Another detail mentioned by Carroll, and atbest obscure in Bede, is that when King Ethelbert converted and was baptized: “Augustineimmediately asked Pope Gregory for more priests, knowing that the Church wouldnow grow very rapidly in England.”[16]This clearly demonstrates Augustine’s understanding of the great importance ofwinning over a ruler in order to win over the people. Finally, while Bede mostly confines himselfto what was going on in England during this time, Carroll gives a much broaderhistorical context. He also speaks aboutthe concurrent conversion of the rulers of Spain at the hands of Saint Leander,and in particular way the staunch orthodoxy of the Merovingian PrincessIngunthis who married the Gothic Prince of Spain Hermenegild and converted himto orthodoxy from the Arian heresy in which his country was then steeped.[17]Hermenegild would eventually be martyred by his own Arian Father, and after hisdeath his brother Reccared succeeded to the throne.[18] He it was who would secured the officialconversion of Spain to the orthodox Catholic faith and who personally addressedthe 65 Bishops at the Council of Toledo in 589 which permanently sealed theorthodoxy of Spain and the condemnation of Arianism in that land.[19] Thus both the great Catholic Kingdoms ofSpain and England seem to have been closely connected, if not in some waybrought about, by the conversion of the Eldest Daughter of the Church and herleaders. Saints Remigius, Augustine, andLeander performed a powerful work when one considers the vast host of Saintsthat would be raised up by God in these great Catholic lands for hundreds ofyears after these great men had left this earth to their eternal reward.

WhenEthelbert’s son Eadbald came to the throne he rejected the faith of his fatherand banished two Bishops who had been consecrated by Saint Augustine.[20] Thismisfortune was soon reversed when, before he too left Britain, Augustine’ssuccessor Laurentius converted Eadbald and the Church could again grow. Thenext King was Edwin who was a heathen but who married the Christian daughter ofKing Ethelbert and once he converted he “received wide additions to his realm,and brought under his sway all the territories inhabited by the Britons, anachievement unmatched by any previous English King.”[21] Duringhis reign this Christian King inspired the pagan high priest in his realm todestroy his own altars and convert to the true faith.[22] Whenhis nephews succeeded him after his death they both promptly apostatized fromthe faith resulting in much suffering for the people of the kingdom.[23]Both met their end a short time into their reigns and the Kingdom was againrestored to peace by the Christian King Oswald.[24] Onecan then see this trend continue through the history of the English nation thatwhen it has a good Christian ruler the faith flourishes and when the ruler is apagan or heretic much damage is done to the faith of the people and the work ofthe Church. Sadly this culminated when nearlya thousand years after Augustine came to England the once Catholic King HenryVIII broke with the Church and took the entire English nation with him. How we must pray that England will once againbe ruled by a good Catholic ruler and bear the title Island of the Saintsproudly once more.

Collect for the Feast of Saint Edward theConfessor (Oct. 13th)

Deus, qui beátum regem Eduárdum Confessórem tuum æternitátisglória coronásti: fac nos, quǽsumus; ita eum venerári in terris, ut cum eoregnáre póssimus in coelis. Per Dóminumnostrum Iesum Christum, Fílium tuum, qui tecum vivit etregnat in unitáte Spiritus Sancti, Deus, per ómnia sǽcula sæculórum. Amen.

O God, Who hast set upon the head of thy blessed Confessor King Edward acrown of everlasting glory, grant unto us, we beseech thee, so to use ourreverence for him here upon earth, as to make the same a mean whereby to cometo reign with him hereafter in heaven. Through Jesus Christ, thy Son our Lord,Who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, ever oneGod, world without end. Amen.

[1]Saint Bedethe Venerable, A History of the English Church and People, Trans. LeoSherley-Price, (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1955), 40-42.

[2]Ibid, 44-47.

[3]Ibid, 50-51.

[4]Ibid, 66-67.

[5]Ibid, 68-71.

[6]Hugh DeBlacam, Saint Patrick: Apostle of Ireland, Ed. Joseph Husslein S.J.PH.D. (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1941), 67-8.

[7]Bede, AHistory of the English Church and People, 88-91.

[8]Fr.Christopher Rengers O.F.M. Cap., The 33 Doctors of the Church (Rockford:TAN Books and Publishers, 2000), 220.

[9]Ibid, 230.

[10]Ibid, 220-1.

[11]Ibid, 221.

[12]W. Carroll,A History of Christendom, vol. 2, The Building of Christendom(Front Royal: Christendom College Press, 1987),197-9.

[13]F. H.Dudden, Gregory the Great, His Place in History and Thought (New York,1905, 1967), 2 vols.

[14]MargaretDeanesly, Augustine of Canterbury (London, 1964).

[15]Carroll, TheBuilding of Christendom, 198.

[16]Ibid, 198.

[17]Ibid, 192.

[18]Ibid, 195.

[19]Ibid.

[20]Bede, AHistory of the English Church and People, 106-8.

[21]Ibid, 112.

[22]Ibid, 124-6.

[23]Ibid,138-39.

[24]Ibid, 139.

"Catholic"

2011-10-25T17:09:00.001-04:00

There is a verycommon practice today of adding various prefixes to the wonderful title of“Catholic”. These are not the acceptableones such as: Roman, Greek, Melkite, Maronite, Syro-Malabar, etc which refer tothe legitimate diversity of Catholic liturgies and cultures. The ones I refer to are those such as:Traditionalist, Neo-Conservative, Liberal, etc. This has resulted in great scandal to the world, because of these vastnumbers of men and women calling themselves Catholic and dissenting from theteaching and/or the authority of the Church. These dissenters have thus removed themselves from the Church and nolonger have the right to call themselves Catholic at all, but yet to the worldthey are representatives of Catholicism. It also shows only further division in Christendom, which is a greatstumbling block to potential converts. This trend is nothing new and was spoken about nearly one hundred yearsago by our Holy Father Pope Benedict XV in his encyclical Ad beatissimiapostolorum of November 1^st, 1914:

“It is, moreover, Our will that Catholicsshould abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought intouse to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoidednot only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with bothtruth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble andconfusion among Catholics. Such is thenature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be heldas a whole or as a whole rejected: (Athanasian Creed). There is no need ofadding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quiteenough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic mysurname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he callshimself.” (Paragraph #24)

I understand, however, the position of many faithful Catholics who callthemselves “Conservative” or even “Traditionalist” Catholics in order todifferentiate themselves from the many dissenting Catholics who while notactually professing what the Church teachers nor in any way practicing theirfaith still insist upon calling themselves Catholic. Still these appellations have often developedinto a very dangerous drawing of lines, even among good Catholics who are doingtheir best to be faithful. We have onone side those who suggest that the Church as it was before the Second VaticanCouncil is the true Church, and on the other those who would say that theChurch after the council is the true Church, while rejecting what came before. This rupture is just what our wonderful HolyFather Pope Benedict XVI (may his reign be long) has spoken of on a number ofoccasions:

"Certainly the results of Vatican IIseem cruelly opposed to the expectations of everyone, beginning with those ofPope John XXIII and then of Pope Paul VI: expected was a new Catholic unity andinstead we have been exposed to dissension which, to use the words of Pope PaulVI, seems to have gone from self-criticism to self-destruction. Expected was anew enthusiasm, and many wound up discouraged and bored. Expected was a greatstep forward, instead we find ourselves faced with a progressive process ofdecadence which has developed for the most part under the sign of a calling backto the Council, and has therefore contributed to discrediting it for many. Thenet result therefore seems negative. I am repeating here what I said ten yearsafter the conclusion of the work: it is incontrovertible that this periodhas definitely been unfavorable for the Catholic Church."

-Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict XVI),L'Osservatore Romano, 24 December 1984

"The Second Vatican Council has not beentreated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an endof Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particularCouncil defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modestlevel, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it hadmade itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of allthe rest."

-Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict XVI),address to the Chilean Bishops, 13 July 1988, Santiago Chile

“How much Christ suffers in his own Church.How often is the Holy Sacrament of His real presence abused. How often must Heenter empty and evil hearts. How often do we celebrate only ourselves withouteven realizing that He is there. How often is His word twisted and misused.What little faith is present behind so many theories and so many empty words.How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those in the priesthoodwho should belong entirely to Him. How much pride. How much self complacency.What little respect for the sacrament of reconciliation where He waits for usto raise us up whenever we fall. How much filth there is. How much filth.”

-Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict XVI), Sermongiven on Good Friday of 2005 just 3 ½ weeks before being elected SupremePontiff

And he clearly points out the focal point of these troubles in theChurch:

"I am convinced that the crisis in theChurch that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to thedisintegration of the liturgy.”

-Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict XVI),"Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977" (SF, CA: Ignatius), p. 149.

"What happened at the Council wassomething else entirely: in the place of the liturgy as the fruit ofdevelopment came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living, processof growth and development over centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturingprocess - with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product."

-Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict XVI), Fromthe preface to the French edition of "Reforms of the Roman Liturgy ItsProblems and Background" 1993

"The second great event at the beginningof my years in Regensburg was the publication of the Missal of Paul VI, whichwas accompanied by the almost total prohibition, after a transitional phase ofonly half a year, of using the missal we had had until then. (...) Theprohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had knowncontinuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of theancient Church, introduced a breach of the liturgy whose consequences couldonly be tragic."

-Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict XVI), "Milestones– Memoirs 1927 – 1977", Joseph Ratzinger, Ignatius, San Francisco, 1998,p. 146

Here our Holy Father has just most plainly elucidated the fundamentalprincipal of “Lex orandi Lex credenda”, which means: the law of worship is thelaw of belief. This means that the waywe worship directly influences how we believe and vice versa. And then just a few weeks ago on the Feast ofSaint Francis of Assisi (10/4/11) Cardinal Piacenza, Prefect ofthe Congregation for the Clergy, made the following remarks to seminarians ofthe Archdiocese of Los Angeles:

“Yourswill probably be the first generation that will correctly interpret the SecondVatican Council, not according to the "spirit" of the Council,which has brought so much disorientation to the Church, but according towhat the Conciliar Event really said, in its texts to the Church and to theworld…There cannot be, nor could there be, a pre-Conciliar Church and apost-Conciliar Church! Were it thus, the second one - ours - would behistorically and theologically illegitimate! There is only one Churchof Christ, of which you are part, that goes from Our Lord to the Apostles, fromthe Blessed Virgin Mary to the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church, from theMiddle Ages to the Renaissance, from Romanesque to Gothic to Baroque, and thusuntil our days, uninterruptedly, without any dissolution of continuity, ever!”

We need to remember that we must be with the Church in what itactually teaches. We must be faithful towhat it is teaching, has taught, and will always teach: the one only truth ofJesus Christ.

“He that is not with me, is against me; and he that gathereth not withme, scattereth.”

–Luke 11:23; Matt 12:30

“But because thou art lukewarm, and neithercold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. Becausethou sayest: I am rich, and made wealthy, and have need of nothing: and knowestnot, that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. Icounsel thee to buy of me gold fire tried, that thou mayest be made rich; andmayest be clothed in white garments, and that the shame of thy nakedness maynot appear; and anoint thy eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. Such as I love,I rebuke and chastise. Be zealoustherefore, and do penance. Behold, I stand at the gate, and knock. If anyman shall hear my voice, and open to me the door, I will come in to him, andwill sup with him, and he with me. To him that shall overcome, I will give tosit with me in my throne: as I also have overcome, and am set down with myFather in his throne. He that hath anear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.”

–The Apocalypse of Saint John3:16-22

Who is Catholic?

A clear definition of the Church was given to us by thegreat Jesuit and Doctor of the Church Saint Robert Bellarmine:

"A body of men united together by the profession of the same ChristianFaith, and by participation in the same sacraments, under thegovernance of lawful pastors, more especially of the Roman Pontiff,the sole vicar of Christ on earth." (Coetus hominum ejusdem christianæfidei professione, et eorumdem sacramentorum communione colligatus, subregimine legitimorum pastorum et præcipue unius Christi in Terris vicariiRomani Pontificis.) (De Eccl., III, ii, 9.)

To this can be added:

"See that you all follow thebishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you wouldthe apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Letno man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that bedeemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or byone to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there letthe multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, thereis the Catholic Church."
-Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Father of the Church, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans #8,(50-117AD)

For a more fleshed out explanation we can turn to the RomanCatechism, which is still the official manual for Catholic Priests to use forcatechizing the faithful, and was commissioned by Pope Saint Pius V to be afaithful explanation of the infallible decrees of the Council of Trent, andwhich was edited by the great Saint Charles Borromeo to whom we also owe forthe modern Seminary system:

The Parts of the Church

Saint Charles Borromeo

These things having been explained, it will be necessary to enumerate theseveral component parts of the Church, and to point out their difference, inorder that the faithful may the better comprehend the nature, properties,gifts, and graces of God's beloved Church, and by reason of them unceasinglypraise the most holy name of God.

The Church consists principally of two parts, the one called the Churchtriumphant; the other, the Church militant. The Church triumphant is that mostglorious and happy assemblage of blessed spirits, and of those who havetriumphed over the world, the flesh, and the iniquity of Satan, and are nowexempt and safe from the troubles of this life and enjoy everlasting bliss. TheChurch militant is the society of all the faithful still dwelling on earth. Itis called militant, because it wages eternal war with those implacable enemies,the world, the flesh and the devil.

We are not, however, to infer that there are two Churches. The Churchtriumphant and the Church militant are two constituent parts of one Church; onepart going before, and now in the possession of its heavenly country; theother, following every day, until at length, united with our Saviour, it shallrepose in endless felicity.

The Members Of The Church Militant

The Church militant is composed of two classes of persons, the good and thebad, both professing the same faith and partaking of the same Sacraments, yetdiffering in their manner of life and morality.

The good are those who are linked together not only by the profession of thesame faith, and the participation of the same Sacraments, but also by thespirit of grace and the bond of charity. Of these St. Paul says: The Lordknoweth who are his. Who they are that compose this class we also may remotelyconjecture, but we can by no means pronounce with certainty. Hence Christ theSaviour does not speak of this portion of His Church when He refers us to theChurch and commands us to hear and to obey her. As this part of the Church isunknown, how could we ascertain with certainty whose decision to recur to,whose authority to obey?

The Church, therefore, as the Scriptures and the writings of the Saintstestify, includes within her fold the good and the bad; and it was in thissense that St. Paul spoke of one body and one spirit. Thus understood, theChurch is known and is compared to a city built on a mountain, and visible fromevery side. As all must yield obedience to her authority, it is necessary thatshe may be known by all.

That the Church is composed of the good and the bad we learn from many parablescontained in the Gospel. Thus, the kingdom of heaven, that is, the Churchmilitant, is compared to a net cast into the sea, to a field in which tareswere sown with the good grain, to a threshing floor on which the grain is mixedup with the chaff, and also to ten virgins, some of whom were wise, and somefoolish. And long before, we trace a figure and resemblance of this Church inthe ark of Noah, which contained not only clean, but also unclean animals.

But although the Catholic faith uniformly and truly teaches that the good andthe bad belong to the Church, yet the same faith declares that the condition ofboth is very different. The wicked are contained in the Church, as the chaff ismingled with the grain on the threshing floor, or as dead members sometimesremain attached to a living body.

Those Who Are Not Members Of TheChurch

Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church's pale:infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons. Infidels areoutside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church,and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. Heretics andschismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from herand belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they havedeserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to thejurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before hertribunals, punished and anathematised. Finally, excommunicated persons are notmembers of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from thenumber of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.

But with regard to the rest, however wicked and evil they may be, it is certainthat they still belong to the Church: Of this the faithful are frequently to bereminded, in order to be convinced that, were even the lives of her ministersdebased by crime, they are still within the Church, and therefore lose nothing oftheir power.

What are the true teachings of the Catholic Faith?

The difficulty many find today, however, is what does this“same Christian Faith”, as Saint Robert Bellarmine put it, actually consistof? The answer to this has been given usby the great Father of the Church Saint Vincent of Lérins in his Commonitorium:

How to tell what are the actual truths of the CatholicFaith…

Chapter II.

A General Rule for distinguishing the Truth of the Catholic Faith fromthe Falsehood of Heretical Pravity.

I have often then inquiredearnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning,how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able todistinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of hereticalpravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer tothis effect: That whether I or any oneelse should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as theyrise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, theLord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority ofthe Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

But here some one perhaps will ask,Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself foreverything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it theauthority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason,—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept itin one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another inanother; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there areinterpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another,Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris,Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestoriusanother. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies ofsuch various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophetsand apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiasticaland Catholic interpretation.

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that wehold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. Forthat is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the nameitself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. Thisrule we shall observe if we follow universality,antiquity, consent. We shallfollow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the wholeChurch throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart fromthose interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holyancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself weadhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at theleast of almost all priests and doctors.

What to do today when it seems many if not most who call themselvesCatholic dissent from the true Catholic Faith…

Chapter III.

What is to be done if one or more dissent from the rest.

What then will a Catholic Christiando, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion ofthe universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole bodyto the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely aninsignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his careto cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by anyfraud of novelty.

But what, if in antiquity itselfthere be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a cityor even of a province? Then it willbe his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of anancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up onwhich no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult andinterrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though livingin divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of theone Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: andwhatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one ortwo of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently,persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believewithout any doubt or hesitation.

What a true Catholic looks like….

Chapter XX.

The Notes of a true Catholic.

This being the case, he is the true and genuine Catholic wholoves the truth of God, who loves the Church, who loves the Body of Christ, whoesteems divine religion and the Catholic Faith above every thing, above theauthority, above the regard, above the genius, above the eloquence, above thephilosophy, of every man whatsoever; who sets light by all of these, andcontinuing steadfast and established in the faith, resolves that he willbelieve that, and that only, which he is sure the Catholic Church has helduniversally and from ancient time; but that whatsoever new and unheard-ofdoctrine he shall find to have been furtively introduced by some one oranother, besides that of all, or contrary to that of all the saints, this, hewill understand, does not pertain to religion, but is permitted as a trial,being instructed especially by the words of the blessed Apostle Paul, whowrites thus in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, “There must needs be heresies, that they who are approved may be mademanifest among you:” (1 Corinthians 2:9) as though he should say, This isthe reason why the authors of Heresies are not forthwith rooted up by God,namely, that they who are approved may be made manifest; that is, that it maybe apparent of each individual, how tenacious and faithful and steadfast he isin his love of the Catholic faith.

…..

For therefore it is that outside the most secure harbour of theCatholic Faith, they are tossed about, beaten, and almost killed, by diverstempestuous cogitations, in order that they may take in the sails ofself-conceit, which, they had with ill advice unfurled to the blasts of novelty,and may betake themselves again to, and remain stationary within, the mostsecure harbour of their placid and good mother, and may begin by vomiting upthose bitter and turbid floods of error which they had swallowed, thatthenceforward they may be able to drink the streams of fresh and living water. Let them unlearn well what they had learntnot well, and let them receive so much of the entire doctrine of the Church asthey can understand: what they cannot understand let them believe.

Is it necessary to be Catholic to be saved?

Many Catholics today object to, or even outright reject, theteaching of “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” or “No salvation outside the Church”. This is very dangerous, however, because thisis a defined Dogma of our Catholic faith which we must believe or we cannot besaved. (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott, pgs. 312-13) The following are the official pronouncementsthrough the history of the Church, and for which I have provide completecitations including the paragraph number where it can be found in Denziger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma:

"Byheart we believe and by mouth confess the one Church, not of heretics but theHoly Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside which we believe that no oneis saved."

-PopeInnocent III, Eius exemplo, 18 December 1208 (DS 423)

"The universal Church of thefaithful is one outside of which none is saved."
-Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, November 1215 (DS 430)

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessaryfor the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the RomanPontiff."
-Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 18 November 1302 (DS 468)

“No man of the wayfarers outsidethe faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, canfinally be saved.”

-Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam,20 September 1351 (DS 570 b)

"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and proclaims thatall those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews orheretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go “into theeverlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt.25:41], unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of theirlives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance thatonly for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute tosalvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices ofthe Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in almsand even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he haspersevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”
-Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull Cantate Domino, 4 February 1441 (DS714)

“Likewise,all other things I accept and profess, which the Holy Roman Church accepts andprofesses, and I likewise condemn, reject, and anathematize, at the same timeall contrary things, both schisms and heresies, which have been condemned,rejected, and anathematized by the same Church. In addition, I promise and swear true obedience tothe Roman Pontiff, the successor of Blessed Peter, the prince of the Apostlesand the vicar of Jesus Christ. And that this faith of the Catholic Church,without which no one can be saved, etc. . . . [as in the Tridentineprofession of faith].”

-PopeBenedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, Profession of Faith prescribed of Eastern RiteCatholics, 16 March 1743 (DS 1473)

"For, it must be held by faith thatoutside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the onlyark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in theflood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain thatthey who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance isinvincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God.Now, in truth, who would arrogate somuch to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of thenature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so manyother things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains "weshall see God as He is" [1 John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by howclose and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down bythis mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, inaccordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, onebaptism" [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry. "

-BlessedPope Pius IX, Singulari Quadem, 17 March 1856 (DS 1647)

"Here,too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mentionand censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it ispossible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienatedfrom the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed toCatholic teaching. There are, of course,those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holyreligion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by Godon all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able toattain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace.Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts,thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permitanyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvationcannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the sameChurch and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also fromthe successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom 'the custody of thevineyard has been committed by the Savior.'(Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon inits letter to Pope Leo)"

-BlessedPope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 10 August 1863 (DS 1677)

"Butwhen we consider what was actually done we find that Jesus Christ did not, in point of fact, institute a Church to embraceseveral communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lackingthose bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after thatmanner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: 'I believe in oneChurch.'...For this reason Christ, speaking of the mystical edifice, mentionsonly one Church, which he calls His own - "I will build my church;"any other Church except this one, since it has not been founded by Christ,cannot be the true Church...The Church, therefore, is bound to communicatewithout stint to all men, and to transmit through all ages, the salvationeffected by Jesus Christ, and the blessings flowing there from. Wherefore, bythe will of its Founder, it is necessary that this Church should be one in alllands and at all times...The Churchof Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it departfrom the will and command of Christ, the Lord - leaving the path of salvationthey enter on that of perdition."

-PopeLeo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 29 June 1896 (DS 1955)

"Actually only those are to be included asmembers of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, andwho have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity ofthe Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faultscommitted. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were weall baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond orfree." [I Cor. 12:13] As therefore in the true Christian community thereis only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be onlyone faith. [Eph. 4:5] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let himbe considered -- so the Lord commands -- as a heathen and a publican. [Matt.18:17] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be livingin the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one DivineSpirit."

-VenerablePope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 29 June 1943 (DS 2286)

Can the Church’s Dogmatic teaching change?

Many might object to the many sources I have citedthroughout this article thus far. Theythink that “well that was the old days” and that “things have changed now”, butactually they haven’t and they can’t. What the Catholic Church actually teaches is that it teaches the onetruth given to us by Jesus Christ and which is unchanging. No one in the Church, not even a Pope, hasthe authority to change anything that has been set down under the guarantee ofInfallibility and bearing the title of Dogma.

Three Basic Principles:

#1 - God can't have a new idea. Why? He's God. He alreadyknows everything, can't learn anything, can't forget anything, and he iseternal and unchanging.

#2 - God has made it possible for each one of us to knowwhat is necessary for salvation. How did he do this? He founded the One, Holy,Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit in itsInfallible and Dogmatic pronouncements. How do we know that this is so?... 1)If it has been taught always and everywhere by all of the orthodox teachers ofthe faith (ie. that only men were ever to be ordained Priests), or 2) When anEcumenical Council Solemnly declares and defines a teaching and does so sayingthat it is a teaching handed down by the Apostles from our Lord (ie. the DivineMotherhood of Mary), or 3) When a Pope speaks Ex Cathedra (What is "ex cathedra"?)(ie. the Immaculate Conception of Mary).

#3 - Christ founded his Church to pass down His teachingsand NOT to add to them or change them in any way.

The Infallible Teaching of the First Vatican Council:

"For the holy Spirit waspromised to the successors of Peter notso that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that,by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound therevelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embracedby all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holyorthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter alwaysremains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of ourLord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you thatyour faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen yourbrethren [Lk 22, 32]." (Session 4,18 July 1870, Ch. 4, #6)

"...that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which hasonce been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be anyabandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profoundunderstanding." (Session 3, 24 April 1870, Ch. 4, #14)

And Pope Paul VI's Encyclical Mysterium Fidei, which waspromulgated on September 3, 1965 near the close of the Second Vatican Councilonly reiterates this teaching...

"There are, however, VenerableBrothers, a number of reasons for serious pastoral concern and anxiety... Wecan see that some of those who are dealing with this... Dogma...that aredisturbing the minds of the faithful and causing them no small measure ofconfusion about matters of faith, just asif it were all right for someone to take doctrine that has already been definedby the Church and consign it to oblivion or else interpret it in such a way asto weaken the genuine meaning of the words or the recognized force of theconcepts involved…And so the rule oflanguage which the Church has established through the long labor of centuries,with the help of the Holy Spirit, and which she has confirmed with theauthority of the Councils, and which has more than once been the watchword andbanner of orthodox faith, is to be religiously preserved, and no one maypresume to change it at his own pleasure or under the pretext of new knowledge."

What must we do to be truly called Catholic?

And so now is the time that having being filled with all ofthe theoretical knowledge about the realities of the Catholic Church and Faithand its necessity for salvation we will now turn to practical matters. What follows is a list of essential practiceswhich are a natural outgrowth of what we believe in our hearts as Catholics,the truth of Jesus Christ, and a way of showing forth Christ in our own person:

-Hold fast to all of the true teachings of the One, Holy,Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

-Frequent the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist

-Follow all Six of the precepts of the Church:

1- Toattend Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation

2- To fast and abstain on the dayscommanded.

3- To confess our sins at leastonce a year.

4- To receive the Blessed Eucharistat Easter or within the time

approved.

5- To contribute to the support ofour Pastors.

6- Not to solemnize marriage at theforbidden times; nor to marry persons within the forbidden degrees of kindred,or otherwise prohibited by the Church, nor secretly.

-Devote your life to serving and loving the most SacredHeart of Jesus and the most Immaculate and Sorrowful Heart of Mary in whateverstate of life God has called you to.

-Make a good morning offering every Day

-Pray at least 5 decades of the Rosary every day, and jointhe Archconfraternity of the Most Holy Rosary:http://www.pacifier.com/rosary-center.org/nroscon.htm

-Pray 3 Hail Mary’s every morning and every night forholiness and a happy death.

-Wear the Brown Scapular (or better yet the Five-foldScapular) and be enrolled in it.

-Perform the Spiritual Works of Mercy

To instruct the ignorant;
To counsel the doubtful;
To admonish sinners;
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offences willingly;
To comfort the afflicted;
To pray for the living and the dead.

-Perform the Corporal Works of Mercy

To feed the hungry;
To give drink to the thirsty;
To clothe the naked;
To harbour the harbourless;
To visit the sick;
To ransom the captive;
To bury the dead.

13 Essential Meansto attaining Salvation

(Compiled by Father John Fongemie, F.S.S.P., and based uponFather Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s “The Priest in Union with Christ” and DomChautard’s “The Soul of the Apostolate”)

-Have a great desire for Holiness, “Be you thereforeperfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.” –Matt 5:48

-Conformity to the Will of God and abandonment to DivineProvidence and to follow the Vocation God will’s for us.

-Fidelity to the Graces we receive each day and a devotionto the Holy Ghost

-The practice of the presence of God, i.e. Jesus in theEucharist and the Blessed Trinity in our Souls when we are in the State ofGrace. Attending daily Mass, making spiritualcommunions, praying the Rosary, etc.

-Examination of conscience each day.

-Frequent Confession.

-External and internal mortification

-Willingness to makes sacrifices.

-Plan of life. Livinga timetable each day that makes time for prayer.

-Spiritual Reading, reading of good and holy Catholic booksaccording to our state in life and aptitude.

-Spiritual Direction. Everyone needs regular spiritual director, which means getting a goodspiritual director.

-Good friendships. Meaning making friends with those who are trying to live good and holylives.

-Mental Prayer. “Every Saint, became a Saint, because of mental prayer.” –SaintAlphonsus Liguori

Authority, Scripture, and Tradition

2011-10-09T12:43:00.000-04:00

(Note: all of the scripture quotes I will be taking from the Douay-Rhiems Biblewhich is the oldest English translation of the Bible upon which the greaterpart of the King James Bible was based.)

SaintPeter says in his first Epistle: “But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts,being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hopewhich is in you.” (1 Peter 3:15) And howcan we satisfy those who ask if we don’t take the time and effort to learn ourfaith. Our dear separated brethren theProtestants have gone astray, but they are seeking the truth. Unfortunately they often have a difficulttime finding it because they don’t know where to look, and we Catholics who havethe truth do not know our faith as we should in order to answer theirquestions. The topic of this post dealswith the most foundational issue keeping Protestants from returning to the truefold of the Catholic Church. Upon thisissue hinges every other argument Protestants can hold against Catholics. I hope by putting forth this explanation itmight help to shed some light on this very important issue.

Where does allauthority derive from?

Theanswer for any Christian must be our Lord Jesus Christ and rest of the Blessedand Adored Trinity. This is explicatedby the glorious Apostle Saint Paul as follows:

“Letevery soul be subject to higher powers. For there is no power but from God: andthose that are ordained of God. Therefore,he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. And they thatresist purchase to themselves damnation.” -Romans 13:1-2

Andhe was merely reiterating the words of Solomon:

“Hear,therefore, ye kings, and understand, learn ye that are judges of the ends ofthe earth. Give ear, you that rule thepeople, and that please yourselves in multitudes of nations: For power is givenyou by the Lord, and strength by the most High, who will examine your works: andsearch out your thoughts”

-Wisdom6:2-4

Thewords of Iesou son of Seirach:

“Thepower of the earth is in the hand of God, and in his time he will raise up aprofitable ruler over it.”

-Ecclesiasticus[Sirach] 10:4

Andof the Prophet Daniel:

“…themost High ruleth in the kingdom of men: and he will give it to whomsoever itshall please him…” -Daniel 4:14

How is the authority ofour Lord Jesus Christ manifested on earth so that we His faithful disciplesmight know His will and that might follow it?

Theanswer again for every Christian must be that His authority is manifested inthe visible Church He established before ascending into Heaven, which Heestablished with the Apostles (the first Bishops) as its first leaders and withSaint Peter at their head. ThereforeChrist is the Head of the Church and His Vicar here on Earth was Saint Peterand has been afterwards his successors in an unbroken line of successionleading all through the following nearly 2000 years to the current Holy FatherPope Benedict XVI all the while being guided by the Holy Spirit. This is clearly established in SacredScripture in the following passages:

“AndI say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church,and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of thekingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be boundalso in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosedalso in heaven.” -Matthew 16:18-19

“And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: Allpower is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of theFather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: andbehold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” -Matthew28:18-20

“And he said to them: Go ye into the wholeworld, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believethnot shall be condemned.” -Mark 16:15-16 (Here and in the passage above Our Lordis speaking to the Apostles specifically, and not to the faithful in general,explaining to them their duties as the leaders of the Church)

“When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith toSimon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith tohim: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed mylambs. He saith to him again: Simon, sonof John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I lovethee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. Hesaid to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter wasgrieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he saidto him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He saidto him: Feed my sheep.” -John 21:15-17

(His“sheep” meaning the Bishops and Priests of the Church, and His “lambs” refersto all of us.)

“Andhe hath subjected all things under his feet, and hath made him head over allthe church, which is his body, and the fullness of him who is filled all inall.” -Ephesians 1:22-23

“And he gave some apostles, and some prophets,and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, for theperfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of thebody of Christ.” -Ephesians 4:11-12

“…Christ is the head of the church. He is thesaviour of his body. Therefore as thechurch is subject to Christ…” -Ephesians 5:23-24

Evenif one is not convinced by this line of argument thus far, it is essential tokeep it in mind in order to understand the Catholic Church and why it does whatit does and in the way it does it. Onemust see this truth that the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded byJesus Christ and that the “gates of hell will not prevail against it”. This is not to say that those who make up theChurch even those in high office are not fallible, for certainly we are allhuman, but our Lord made a promise and He cannot but make good on it. Even though members of the Church, even atthe highest levels, have made mistakes, but the faith as give by Jesus Christand transmitted by the Apostles, and then their successors, has never beencorrupted and taught officially by the Church as such. Even if even some high ranking members of theChurch hierarchy in the past have been mistaken, the Pope himself who is themouthpiece of Jesus Christ has never and can never officially promulgate error,even if he were to personally and privately hold to a particular error (whichhas happened, ie Pope John XXII). Thisis the wonderful guarantee of Papal Infallibility; not that the Pope is neverwrong but that he is protected from teaching error “when, in the exercise ofhis office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supremeapostolic authority, and he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to beheld by the whole church” (First Vatican Council, Session 4, Ch. 4, #9, 18 July1870). This is also what is called theindefectibility of the Church which is again derived from Mathew 16 and explainedin much greater detail by the Church guided by the Holy Spirit throughout thelast 2000 years. Now I think this pointis very important as there are many misconceptions about the Catholic Church’steaching on Infallibility, even among Catholics:

"For the holy Spirit was promised to thesuccessors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make knownsome new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guardand faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by theapostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all thevenerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors,for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemishedby any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour tothe prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may notfail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [Luke22:32]." -First Vatican Council, Session 4, Ch. 4, #6,18 July 1870

Itis very important that one keep this perspective as they follow this line ofargument from here. Even if one doesn’tagree, they have to understand that any question raised will ultimately comeback to this point, and that this is the lens through which one must look tounderstand what will be said in the following paragraphs.

In what medium does theSacred Deposit of the Faith reside?

Mostmainline Protestants will posit that it resides solely in Sacred Scripture asinterpreted by each individual Christian. While the Sacred Scriptures are very important as they are the InfallibleWord of God, however, they are not sufficient unto themselves, nor can theystand alone. This is because, while theOld Testament comes to us originally from the Jews, both it and the NewTestament come to us thanks ultimately to the Catholic Church. Martin Luther himself said that we owe a debtof gratitude to the Catholic Church for Sacred Scripture. Luther knew this well as he was a CatholicPriest, before he instigated the Protestant revolt which tore apart CatholicEurope.

Ifthe Bible was the sole rule of faith then Christians of the first fourcenturies after the death of Christ would have been in a difficult positionsince there was no such thing as “The Bible” during that time. The last book of the New Testament (TheApocalypse of Saint John) was completed around the year 100AD, but the completeBiblical Canon was not finalized until the Synod of Rome in 382AD, and theCouncils of Hippo (393AD) and Carthage (419AD). Clearly then there must have been another way that the Faith of JesusChrist was passed on during this time, and of course that was via Tradition.

Scriptureis in fact part of what is known as Written Tradition, but there is also thevery important Oral Tradition. Traditioncomes from the Latin Verb: Tradere, meaning “to hand down”. Authentic orthodox Catholic teaching is thatthe Deposit of the Faith is contained in Scripture and Tradition as interpretedby the official Magisterium (from the Latin magister– teacher, meaning teaching authority) of the Church. There are two components of Tradition: Activeand Passive. Passive Tradition is simplythat which is being handed down and this is what most people think of when theythink of Tradition. Active Tradition onthe other hand is the way and means by which the Passive Tradition is handeddown. Now while Tradition is eitherwritten or oral the ultimate agent of Tradition is the Magisterium of theCatholic Church.

Unfortunatelythere are some Catholics today who fall into the error of Sola Traditio whichis a reliance on Passive Tradition to the exclusion of Active Tradition, justas Sola Scriptura is the reliance on Sacred Scripture to the exclusion of allActive Tradition as well as all other written and oral Tradition. But in order to have the whole faith we musthave both Scripture and Tradition with the Magesterium of the Catholic Churchwith the Pope at its Head guided by the Holy Spirit as the sole interpreter ofSacred Scripture and Tradition. Our Lordpromised the guidance of the Holy Spirit to his Church to keep it free fromofficially teaching any error, and to be able to pass down His teachingswithout corruption for all ages. Thissame promise was not given universally to individual Christians. This is why fewer weeks have passed sinceLuther nailed his 95 Theses on the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church in 1517than there are Protestant denominations currently in existence. This is what happens when each person decidesfor himself what the Bible means. OurLord didn’t set it up that way; instead He gave us the Church. Even Luther himself lamented the degenerationof the faith because of private interpretation of scripture: “Unfortunately, itis our daily experience that now under the Gospel [his] the people entertaingreater and bitterer hatred and envy and are worse with their avarice andmoney-grabbing than before under the Papacy.” (Walch, XIII, 2195, as quoted inThe Facts About Luther. Cincinnati: Pustet, 1916; Rockford, IL: TAN, 1987, pp.215-255.)

Oneof the biggest holes in Sola Scriptura is that nowhere in the Bible does it sayit is the sole rule of faith, however it does speak about the need for oralTradition:

“Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of hisdisciples, which are not written in this book.”

-John 20:30

“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were writtenevery one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the booksthat should be written.” -John 21:25

“Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keepmy ordinances as I have delivered them to you.” -1 Corinthians 11:2
(Clearly referring to Oral Tradition as these “ordinances” he gave to theCorinthians while on his missionary journey to Corinth are not recorded inscripture.)

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by ourepistle.” -2 Thessalonians 2:14
(Here it is explicitly referring to Tradition, and describes it as both writtenand oral.)

“And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that youwithdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according tothe tradition which they havereceived of us.”

-2 Thessalonians 3:6

“Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard ofme in faith, and in the love which is in Christ Jesus. Keep the good thingcommitted to thy trust by the Holy Ghost, who dwelleth in us.”

-2 Timothy 1:13-14

“And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the samecommend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.” -2 Timothy 2:2

“But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which havebeen committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them.” -2 Timothy3:14

“As for you, let that which you have heard from the beginning, abide inyou. If that abide in you, which you have heard from the beginning, you alsoshall abide in the Son, and in the Father.” -1 John 2:24

“But you, my dearly beloved, be mindful of the words which have been spokenbefore by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.” -Jude 1:17

The Bible being the sole rule offaith is found nowhere in the Bible itself, and since you can’t use any sourcesoutside of the Bible (since it is the sole rule of faith), you are in somewhatof a difficult position. The Bible doeshowever actually command the following of oral Tradition. Not to mention that 1 Timothy 3:15 says:

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thououghtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of theliving God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

So the “pillar and ground of thetruth” is not the Bible, but the Church. Our Lord Himself teaches the Apostles that we must submit to theauthority of the Church:

“And if he will nothear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him beto thee as the heathen and publican. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be boundalso in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed alsoin heaven.” -Matt. 18:17-18

Even Sacred Scripture itself atteststo its own insufficiency because of the inherent difficulty in understandingit:

“…our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom givenhim, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them ofthese things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, whichthe unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, totheir own destruction.”

-2 Peter 3:16-17

“And Philip runningthither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou thatthou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless someman show me?” -Acts 8:30-31

“Understanding this first: That no prophecy ofscripture is made by private interpretation.” -2 Peter 1:20

And remember, the first Christiansand for several Centuries into Christianity there was no such thing as “TheBible”. The Bible was produced by theChurch and for the Church, not the reverse. The authority of the Sacred Scriptures was always based upon theauthority of the Church. The Canon ofthe Bible was not settled until the 4^th Century, and then only bythe authority of the Catholic Church. There was the additional problem thatuntil the 1400s the Sacred Scriptures were not available as they are today tothe general public because of the difficulty in producing copies of theBible. So what should be the fate ofthose millions of Christians who lived before the Printing Press wasinvented? Yet these Christians were indaily contact with the Sacred Scriptures through the Liturgy of the CatholicChurch in Holy Mass and the Divine Office (the book of Psalms and prayers saidby all priests, monks, and nuns each day), and thus followed sacred scripturenot by reading it but hearing it: "Faith then cometh by hearing; andhearing by the Word of Christ." (Rom. 10:17) Additionally the whole notion of the Biblebeing used as the sole rule of faith was invented by the founders of Protestantismwho saw it as a way of rejecting the Church. Sacred Scripture is very important since after all it is the InfallibleWord of God, but clearly it cannot be the sole rule of faith.

We must hold fast to the successorof Saint Peter. Submitting oneself tothe Holy Father is essential in order to be a part of the Church founded byChrist upon Saint Peter and the office he was entrusted with. The centralization of authority with Peterand his successors is not something that came about in the 1800s or even themiddle ages, but it was an integral part of the Church from day one. This is demonstrated first in scripture(provided above) and can be continued throughout the history the Church. The following quotes will supply thecontinuity of this reality well into the middle ages:

"Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude ofbelievers be; even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church''

-Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8:2[A.D. 110], a disciple of Saint John the Evangelist

"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, thefirst among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid thetribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And whatdoes he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27;Mark 10:28]"

-Clement of Alexandria, "Who Is the Rich Man That IsSaved?" 21:3–5 [A.D. 200].

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will buildmy Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whateveryou shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’[Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I willgive to you the keys, not to the Church"

-Tertullian, "Modesty" 21:9–10 [A.D. 220].

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who,for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine,was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesushimself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord,the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom theChrist, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect"

-The Letter of Clement to James, [A.D. 221].

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘thatyou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter]he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet hefounded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority asource and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were thatalso which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, wherebyit is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [theapostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all theapostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unityof Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desertthe chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confidentthat he is in the Church?"

-Saint Cyprian of Carthage, "The Unity of the CatholicChurch" 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251].

"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you thefoundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you willsupport all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build onEarth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, thefoundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which myteaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will givedrink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. Ihave chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, asthe heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of mykingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures"

-Saint Ephraim the Syrian, Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

"The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy ofhonor after the bishop of Rome, because his city is New Rome"

-Council of Constantinople I, Canon 3 [A.D. 381].

"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to beannounced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront notby the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy bythe evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and uponthis rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail againstit; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever youshall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall haveloosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see,therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which hasneither stain nor blemish nor anything like it"

-Pope Saint Damasus I, Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382].

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communionwith none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair ofPeter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoevereats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark ofNoah will perish when the flood prevails"

-Saint Jerome, Father and Doctor of the Church, Letters 15:2[A.D. 396].

"There are many other things which rightly keep me inthe bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keepsme, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlargedby love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from thevery seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gavecharge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of PopeSiricius]"

-Saint Augustine, Father and Doctor of the Church, Againstthe Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5 [A.D. 397].

"In seeking the things of God . . . you haveacknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shownthat you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed inthis position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom theepiscopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged"

-Pope Saint Innocent I, (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).

"We enjoin upon you [my legates to the Council ofEphesus] the necessary task of guarding the authority of the Apostolic See. Andif the instructions handed to you have to mention this and if you have to bepresent in the assembly, if it comes to controversy, it is not yours to jointhe fight but to judge of the opinions [on my behalf]"

-Pope Saint Celestine I, Letters 17 [A.D. 431]. (Sent SaintPatrick to Ireland)

"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I]said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when thewritings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members,by our holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holyacclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the wholefaith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle. And since now[we], after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, [have] arrived, we askthat you order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holysynod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessedpope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify theirdetermination’"

-The Council of Ephesus, Acts of the Council, Session 2[A.D. 431].

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principalcharge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as fromthe head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares tosecede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in thedivine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in hisundivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter,and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building ofthe eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Churchso surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hellprevail against it"

-Pope Saint Leo the Great, Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445].

"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, toheed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city ofRome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides thetruth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peaceand faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop ofRome"

-Saint Peter Chrysologus, Father and Doctor of theChurch(Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).

"Macedonius declared, when desired by the EmperorAnastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that 'such a step without anEcumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.'"

-Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople (466-516)(Macedonius, Patr. Graec. 108: 360a (Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 234-346 seq.)

"Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to YourHoliness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we havehastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unitethem to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, howevermanifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches,not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head ofall the holy Churches."

-The Emperor Justinian (520-533), writing to the Pope(Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

"Teaching us all orthodoxy and destroying all heresyand driving it away from the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church.And together with these inspired syllables and characters, I accept all his(the pope's) letters and teachings as proceeding from the mouth of Peter theCoryphaeus, and I kiss them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul... I recognize the latter as definitions of Peter and the former as those ofMark, and besides, all the heaven-taught teachings of all the chosenmystagogues of our Catholic Church."

-Saint Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (c. 638)(Sophronius, Mansi, xi. 461)

"How much more in the case of the clergy and Church ofthe Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which areunder the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as fromcouncils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul),and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues insynodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even asin all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) accordingto sacerdotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becomingconfidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovablerock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome."

-Saint Maximus the Confessor (c. 650) (Maximus, in J.B.Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

"Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventhCouncil) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even thoughconfirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain fullapproval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assignedto them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands thedignity of headship among the Apostles."

-Saint Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828)(Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

"Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the officeof Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the CatholicChurch be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, ChiefShepherd of the Church of Heaven."

-Saint Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826),writting to Pope Leo III (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

St. Marcellinus, St. Marcellus I, St. Anicetus, St. Telephorus, St. Evaristus

Life

2011-10-01T20:59:00.000-04:00

An attack upon something as essential and foundational aslife cannot be ignored, and it is so important that we defend all innocenthuman life. This is why Blessed PopeJohn Paul II called out the modern culture in his Encyclical Evangelium Vitae,calling it the “Culture of Death”. Abortion and euthanasia are two of the greatest evils ever to befall theworld. And sadly these evils are nothingnew, because the devil has always been around since the beginning of mankind andhas been working for our destruction from day one.

The killing of children is recorded early in sacredscripture in connection with the god worshiped by the Ammonites: Moloch. It is important to remember here what Psalm95:5 says: “All the gods of the Gentiles are devils”. Thus Moloch is a demon to which theAmmonites, and later some Israelites, sacrificed their children on a regularbasis (3 Kings 11:5). This was evenafter God specifically forbid this practice on one occasion speaking withMoses, and clearly explained how terrible it was (Leviticus 20).

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich records another particularlyhorrifying instance of child sacrifice in the ancient world in one of hervisions concerning the three wise men in her Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary:

“They took a child of one of the purest and most devoutmothers amongst the followers of their religion, and she esteemed herself veryfortunate to offer up her child in this way. The child was flayed and strewnwith flour to absorb the blood. They ate this blood-soaked flour as a holyrepast, and continued strewing the flour and eating until there was no bloodleft in the child’s body. Finally the child’s flesh was cut up into smallpieces, which were distributed among them and eaten. I saw them performing this gruesome ceremonywith the greatest simplicity and devoutness, and I was told that they hadadopted this dreadful practice as a result of misunderstanding and distortingcertain prophetic and symbolical indications which they had received regardingthe Holy Eucharist. I saw that this terrible sacrifice was carried on inChaldaea, in the country of Mensor, one of the three holy kings, until he putan end to its horrors on receiving enlightenment in a vision from heaven on theday of Mary’s conception.”

Of course, one most terrible instances of ritual humansacrifice, and in particular that of children, ever recorded was during theheight of the Aztec empire in Mexico during the 15^th century. They would cut out the still beating heart ofa grown man offering up his body and blood to placate the “god” (demon) theywere worshiping: Huitzilopochtli. On one particular occasion over the course ofa single day 10,000 men were sacrificed in this way. If that wasn’t terrible enough they alsosacrificed many of their children, in fact one out of every five Aztec childrenwas raised with the explicit intent of sacrificing them. They were raised in all comfort beingpampered in every way so that when it came time for their sacrifice they wouldcry more… in order to appease the rain “god”. (Our Lady of Guadalupe: And theConquest of Darkness, by Dr. Warren Carroll, founder of ChristendomCollege)

Some believe that Moloch and Huitzilopochtliare one in the same and that this very same demon is intimately connected withthe modern abortion industry. It hasbeen demonstrated on numerous occasions the close link between the demonic andabortion industry. Of course most are not explicitly satanic, but there are thoseabortion clinic nurses who would intentionally get pregnant simply in order toabort the child as part of a satanic ritual sacrifice. (Citation)

For an in depth look at the philosophical implications of this on society I recommend reading chapters Six and Seven of Part I of G.K. Chesterton's Everlasting Man.

Now many in the pro-life movement, even theCatholics, seem at some point along the way to have forgotten something veryimportant. Why is abortion so evil? Most pro-lifers would answer something like:because it ends the life of an innocent baby in the womb. This is true, but is it the worst part ofabortion? I don’t think so, becauseabortion is worse than homicide, suicide, euthanasia, or any other form oftaking the life of an innocent human being. Why do I say this? Well I willlet Pope Sixtus V answer for me from the first paragraph of his ApostolicConstitution Effraenatam (Against Abortionists) which was published onOctober 29, 1588:

“We who are placed by the Lord in the supreme throne of justice, beingcounseled by a most just reason, are in part renewing old laws and in partextending them in order to restrain with just punishment the monstrous andatrocious brutality of those who have no fear to kill most cruelly fetusesstill hiding in the maternal viscera. Who will not detest such an abhorrent andevil act, by which are lost not only the bodies but also the souls? Whowill not condemn to a most grave punishment the impiety of him who will excludea soul created in the image of God and for which Our Lord Jesus Christ hasshed His precious Blood, and which is capable of eternal happiness and isdestined to be in the company of angels, from the blessed vision of God,and who has impeded as much as he could the filling up of heavenly mansions,and has taken away the service to God by His creature? who has deprivedchildren of life before they could naturally see light or could be protected bymaternal body from ferocious cruelty?”

You must see then that abortion is so evil because itdeprives children of the possibility of baptism, and thus from the possibilityof living in heaven, for which sanctifying grace is necessary, and which canonly come through the “laver of regeneration” in the sacrament of Baptism. As the Council of Trent infallibly defined:

“If any one saith, that baptism is free,that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.” (Session 7,On Baptism, Canon 5, 3 March 1547)

Theonly exception might be if a baby was specifically aborted with explicit satanicintent, and thus the baby would be killed for the sake of Christ and would thenmerit Baptism of Blood as a martyr, maybe. Now where do the children go if they don’t go to heaven? Do they go to Hell? Well that it was Saint Augustine taught, butI am inclined to follow the Church’s subsequent and far more merciful teachingof the existence of the Limbo of the Children (in addition to the Limbo of theFathers, where the saints of the old testament resided until they wereliberated by Christ after his death on the Cross). To read the pronouncements of the Church on this important teaching please see this post on my other blog here.

It appears that many Christian pro-lifers have forgotten thewords of our Lord:

“And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not ableto kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body inhell.” (Matt. 10:28)

How very importantto remember that "our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; butagainst principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of thisdarkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places."(Ephesians 6:12) I have been convincedeven more of the deeply spiritual nature of the battle against the culture ofdeath, and the necessity of prayer as the essential weapon in this fight, afterreading the book “Unplanned” by Abby Johnson (which I highly recommend).

This forgetfulness of the spiritual and the focus on thetemporal brings me to the final issue I wish to address in this post, and thatis the thorny subject of capital punishment.

In my experience the common opinion among pro-lifers is thatcapital punishment is in the same category as abortion, euthanasia, homicide,suicide, etc. This is a grave mistake,however, because all of the latter are clearly intrinsically evil according to theteaching of the Church, but the former most certainly is not. Now it seems that this misconception aboutcapital punishment derives from three main sources.

The first of these is a misunderstanding based on thetranslation of Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17. Most commonly it istranslated in English as “Thou shalt not kill”, as it was originally in theDouay-Rhiems and (borrowing from it) the original King James. The problem is that the English language haschanged a great deal over time and the meaning of words have become differentover time as well. The word kill todayis the general word of ending the life of any creature whatsoever. This was not the meaning in the 16^thcentury when these translations were made. In fact the equivalent word for them would have been “slay”, but killhad a much more specific meaning of “murder”. To have a clear and Catholic understanding of the nature of whatconstitutes murder I would recommend that you read the entirety of Question 64 of the Secunda Secundae of the Summa Theologiae of Saint Thomas Aquinas, and inparticular Article 2.

The second issue is that a very basic and yet vitaldistinction is not made by so many pro-lifers. This is that there is a big difference between the taking of theinnocent human life which is always evil, and the conviction and sentencing todeath of a criminal (not innocent) by the legitimate governing authority.

Thirdly, many Catholics seem to be under the impression thatBlessed Pope John Paul II condemned capital punishment as being an intrinsicevil on the level of abortion. This issimply false and part of a common trend among many Catholics today to simplyneglect to read the original sources to see what was actually said and not justrepeat what they’ve heard third or fourth hand ad nauseum. I will point you to the very same thing hedoes in Evangelium Vitae, and that is paragraph 2267 of the CCC:

"If bloodless means aresufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect publicorder and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to suchmeans, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the commongood and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person"

Now you need to remember that the CCC actually has nobinding teaching authority, but is simply an approved explanation of thebinding teachings of the Catholic faith, which may yet still carry errors sinceit does not bear the mark of infallibility. Be that as it may, what our late Holy Father actually said was thatcapital punishment ought to be a last resort, but this clearly means that it can beresorted to when necessary, and thus cannot be intrinsically evil. Now our late Holy Father also believed(though it is important to point out that this was his opinion and not by any meansinfallible teaching) that it would only be necessary in rare instances today toimpose the death penalty. His reasongiven for this was because “today however, as a result of steady improvementsin the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare”, but I fearthe Holy Father mistakenly put far too much faith in the prison system in the UnitedStates, which as anyone who is at all familiar with the system will know iscompletely broken.

This brings me to another important point. Just as with abortion pro-lifers havecompletely missed the spiritual side of this issue. What is the most important thing forcondemned criminals? Is it that we savethem from capital punishment? Or is itthat we work and pray for their conversion and the salvation of their soul? Of course the Holy Father makes an importantpoint when discussing the centrality of the reformation of each individualcriminal. Now he believed that capitalpunishment denied the criminal the opportunity to reform his life, andhopefully to convert and be saved. Theproblem with this is that for many criminals the prison system notonly does not help to reform them and given them an opportunity for conversion,but instead buries them deeper in the darkness of evil. Being sentenced to death, however, makesthings very clear to a criminal that his days are numbered and the time for conversionis now, and if then remains obstinate in his sin then that is his choice toreject the grace of God which is always there. This terrible punishment also is a great deterrent for other criminals.

Of course on the other hand the legal system in the UnitedStates is just as broken as the penal system. Far too many men and women are falsely convicted and even sentenced todeath for the crimes of others. Stillthis does not make capital punishment intrinsically evil, or even sinful when legitimatelyimplemented.

It is interesting to note that Pope Sixtus V actuallydecreed that those who perform abortions or sterilizations in the Papal States wereto be punished with the death penalty. Thisof course was when the Church still had the Papal States which covered most ofcentral Italy and was ruled over by the Pope. Sadly these lands given free to the Church by various Catholic Kingswere stolen from the Church during the reign of Blessed Pope Pius IX in thelate mid-19^th century. And infact according the Lateran Treaty of 1929 the death penalty is still in forcein the Vatican City State.

This misunderstanding about the church’s teaching on thisissue I believe is exemplified in these campaigns by Catholic communities tohave letter writing sessions to the Governor of my home state to stay anexecution that was soon to take place. I could only see the starkcontrast with what Saint Therese of Lisieux did when she heard that Pranziniwas to be put to death. She didn’t write the magistrate letters to stopthe execution, but rather prayed for (and it would seem obtained) theconversion of the man. Never once in these Catholic communities, however,was there any mention of praying for the soul of the condemned criminal we wereexhorted to write letters to save his body. And certainly if theintent was to stay the execution to obtain more time for the repentance of thecriminal as Saint Thomas and Blessed Pope John Paul II speak about, then Ithink that would be most laudable, but it certainly did not seem to be theintent there.

I would like to conclude with a defense of the practiceduring the Inquisition in France and Spain in the 13^th-16^thcenturies where in some cases the death penalty was applied. This defense is fromSaint Robert Bellarmine who was declared a Doctor of the Church in 1931 by PopePius XI. It is from his work De Laicis – On Government, and wastranslated from the original Latin by Fr. James Goodwin, S.J.:

Chapter XXI - CanHeretics Condemned by the Church Be Punished with Temporal Penalties and evenwith Death

John Huss, in the recorded article 14 of the Council of Constance, session15, asserted that it is not permitted to hand over an incorrigible heretic tothe secular power and to allow the penalty of burning. Luther held the same inarticle 33 and its assertion. Nor is the error new, for the Donatists alsotaught the same, like Parmenianus, Petilianus, and Gaudentius (as Augustinetestifies, in Book I against the letter of Parmenianus, in Chapter 7, Book IIagainst the Letters of Petilianus, in Chapter 10 of Book II, against the letterof Gaudentius, and in Chapters 17 and 26 of his Letter 50 to Boniface.)

All Catholics teach the contrary, and even some of the heretics. For Calvin,after he had publicly punished as a heretic Michael Servetus with the ultimatepenalty, and after it was debated by other sectarians, published a book inwhich he demonstrates that it is permissible to take notice of heretics with asword. Also Benedict Aretus, in a history of the punishment of ValentiusGentilis, argues that the same Gentilis was rightly punished by the MagistrateBernensis. Theodore Beza, indeed, teaches the same, at greater length, in abook on the punishment of heretics by a magistrate.

We, then, will briefly show that incorrigible heretics, and especiallyrecidivists, can and should be expelled by the Church and be punished by thesecular powers with temporal punishments and even by death itself.

The first proof is from Scripture: The Scripture of the Old Testament (inDeuteronomy XIII, 12) commands most severely that false prophets who encouragethe worship of false gods be put to death, and in Chapter XVII, after sayingthat in doubtful cases the High Priest should be consulted, soon adds: "Ifthe person is haughty, however, and is unwilling to obey the command of theHigh Priest, let him die by the sentence of the judge. (Deuteronomy XVII, 12).And, again, in Chapter XVIII, the false prophet is sentenced to be killed. And,in reality, Elias (or Elijah), Josias (Josiah), Jehu, and others observed thislaw by killing a great many false prophets, as is clear from III Kings, XVIII,and IV Kings, X and XXIII, there is almost no difference between our hereticsand the false prophets of those days. Nor did only the holy Kings and Prophetspunish blasphemers with death, but even Nabuchodonosor [now more often spelledNebuchadnezzar], as is said in Daniel III, promulgated an edict, that whoevershould blaspheme the God of Daniel, that is, the true God, should be put todeath and his home be destroyed; in the same edict, he performed a most worthyservice to the True God, as St. Augustine remarks in his Epistle 50 and elsewhere.In the New Testament, in Matthew XVIII, we find that the Church canexcommunicate and treat as aliens and tax-gatherers those who refuse to obeyand to allow them to be treated by the secular powers as no longer children ofthe Church. We have, then, in Romans XIII, 4, that the secular power can punishcriminals with sword: "It is not without purpose that the ruler carries asword; he is God's servant, to inflict His avenging wrath upon thewrongdoer." From these two scriptural passages, it can be clearly inferredthat it is permissible that heretics, who by the judgment of all are rebelsagainst the Church and disturbers of public peace, be cut off from the Churchand be punished with death by a secular judge.

Moreover, Christ and His Apostles have placed heretics in the same categoryas those matters that can be disposed of, without question, by fire and sword;for in Matthew VII the Lord says: "Be on your guard against falseprophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but underneath are wolves on theprowl." In Acts 20: 29: "I know that when I am gone, savage wolveswill come among you who will not spare the flock." It is certain thatheretics ought to be known by the title of "wolves," as St. Ambroseexplains in his commentary on the beginning of Chapter X of St. Luke. Butravenous wolves are killed for an excellent reason, if they cannot otherwise bedriven away; for much more should be made of the lives of the sheep than of thedeaths of wolves. Likewise, in John X, 1: "Truly, I assure you: Whoeverdoes not enter the sheepfold through the gate but climbs in some other way is athief and a marauder." Under the name of thief and marauder heretics aremeant, and all subversives and founders of sects, as Chrysostom and Augustineexplain; how thieves and marauders should be punished has been explained.Likewise, in II Timothy, II, heresy is compared to a cancer which is not curedby medications but should be excised with a knife, otherwise it will spreadprogressively and the whole body will be destroyed. Finally, Christ, in John,Chapter II, using a whip forces the merchants to leave the temple. Peter, inActs V, killed Ananias and Sapphira because they had presumed to lie to theHoly Spirit; and Paul, in Acts XIII, vs. 6-12, struck with blindness the falseprophet who was trying to keep Sergius Paulus, the Roman proconsular governor,from the Faith.

The matter is proved, secondly, from the sentences and laws of the Emperorswhich the Church regularly approved. The Emperor Constantine the First sent intoexile Arius and some companions at the request of the Nicene Synod, as theauthor Sozomenus notes in Book I, Chapter 20 of his History; likewise, heimposed the penalty of death on the Donatists, as Augustine reports in Book I,in a letter opposed to Parmenianus, Chapter 7, and in Epistle 166, to theDonatists, wherein he enumerates many excellent Emperors who passed many verysevere laws against the heretics, and only one, Julian the Apostate, favoredheretics.

Then Theodosius, Valentinianus, Martianus, and other very religious Emperorspassed laws against heretics by which, on occasion, they sought to punish byfines of pounds of gold, sometimes by confiscation of all their goods,sometimes by exile and scourging, sometimes by imposing the ultimate penalty,as is clear from "C. de hereticis, L. Nanichaeos, L. Ariani, L.Quicumque." by the last of these laws, which is one of Valentinian andMartian, all are to be put to death who attempt to teach perverse doctrine;those, also, who listen to these teachers are punished by fines of some poundsof gold. Justinian, as recorded by Paul the Deacon in Book XVI, by apromulgated law, banished all heretics beyond the boundaries of the entireEmpire, while allowing three months for their conversion; later, the EmperorMichael, as is related in Book XXIV of the same Paul the Deacon, establishedthe capital punishment for heretics.

A third proof is had in the laws of the Church: under the headings, "Adabolendum," "Excommunicamus, extra de hereticis," and in"Sexto de hereticis" in the chapter ahead of it, the Church definesthat incorrigible heretics are to be handed over to the secular power, so thatthey may be punished in a just manner. Likewise, the Council of Constance, insession XV, condemned the opinion of John Huss; and it handed over the sameJohn and Jerome of Prague to the secular power, by whom the two were burned;finally, Leo the Tenth condemned the articles of Luther.

A fourth proof is had in the testimonies of the Fathers. Cyprian, in a bookof exhortation on martyrdom, in Chapter 5, after he had recalled fromDeuteronomy XIII, that pseudoprophets should be killed, he added, "If thiswas done under the Old Testament, much more should it be done under theNew."

Jerome, in reference to the text in Galatians, Chapter 5, "A littleyeast can effect the entire dough," (v. 9) says: "as soon as a sparkappears, it should be extinguished, and yeast close to a batch should beremoved; spoiled meat should be cut away, and a scabby animal should be drivenfrom a sheepfold, lest the whole house, or mass, or body, or herd burn, becorrupted, spoil, or perish. Arius was one spark, but since he was notimmediately extinguished, the whole earth was affected by his flame."

Augustine, in Book II of his Retractions, Chapter 5, and in Epistles 48 and50, retracts what he had once thought, that heretics should not be forced tobelieve, and proves at length that it is very useful; he always rules out thepunishment of death, not because he thought they did not deserve this, but bothbecause he judged that this was unbecoming the gentleness of the Church andalso because no imperial law was in existence, by which heretics were sentencedto death; for the Law, "Quicumque, C. de hereticis," was promulgateda little after the death of Augustine.

That, however, Augustine judged it to be just, if heretics were put todeath, is beyond question; for, in Book I, in opposition to the letter ofParmenianus, in Chapter 7, he demonstrates that if the Donatists were punishedby death, they would be justly so punished. And in tract 11, on John:"They kill souls, he says, and are afflicted in the body, those who bringabout eternal deaths complain that they suffer temporal deaths," by whichhe says they falsely complain that they are killed by Emperors; nevertheless,even if this were true, they would be complaining unjustly. Finally, in hisLetter 50, to Boniface, he writes that the Church does not want any heretic tobe put to death: nevertheless, as the House of David could not enjoy peace unlessAbsalom were done away with and David was consoled by the peace of his realm inhis grief over the death of his son: so when, from the laws of Emperors againstheretics, the deaths of some follow, the sorrow of the maternal heart of theChurch is assuaged by the deliverance of a multitude of people.

St. Leo, in Letter 91, to Turbius, Chapter 1: "Deservedly," hewrote, "our Fathers, in whose time this nefarious heresy broke outthroughout the world, acted immediately to drive out the unholy madness from theuniversal Church; when, also, the Rulers of the world so detested thissacrilegious madness, that they destroyed its author and many of his disciplesby the sword of public law; and this interference with Ecclesiastical lenience,which, although content with a judgment that fled from bloody punishments, wasnevertheless helped by the severe laws of Christian Rulers, while they who fearcorporal punishment sometimes revert to a spiritual remedy." OptatusMilevitanus, in Book III, in replying to the calumnies of heretics who weresorrowful over the death of two of theirs killed by the Prefect Macarius:"You see," he wrote, "that similar things were done by Moses,and Phineas, and Elias, and Macharia, because the punishment of the One God emanatesfrom all of them."

St. Gregory, in Book I, Letter 72, to Gennadius, the Exarch of Africa,praises him because he persecuted heretics with weapons, and he urges him tocontinue.

St. Bernard in Sermon 66, on the Canticle: "They without doubt would bebetter coerced by the sword of him who, not without cause, carries the sword,than that they be allowed to draw many into their error; for he is a servant ofthe Lord and vindicator of wrath against him who does evil. Some marvel thatthey were not only patiently but joyfully led to death, but they scarcelyrecognize how great is the power of the Devil, not only over the bodies of menbut even over their hearts, once he has been allowed to possess them. Is it notbetter for a man to take himself in hand, than for him willingly to acceptforce from another."

There is, finally, a proof from reason. First, heretics can be justlyexcommunicated, as all admit. Therefore, that they [may be] put to death. Theconsequence is proved from the fact that excommunication is a greater penaltythan temporal death. Augustine, in Book I, contra advers. Legis et Prophetarum[against the adversaries of the Law and the Prophets], Chapter 17, says it ismore terrible to be given over to Satan through excommunication, than to bestruck down by the sword, be consumed by flames, or exposed to being devouredby animals.

Secondly, experience teaches that there is no other remedy; for the Churchproceeded gradually, and tried all remedies; first, it fines, then exile,finally, it was driven to the penalty of death; for the heretics show contemptfor excommunication and call them "cold thunderbolts;" if youthreaten the penalty of fines, they neither fear God nor revere men, since theyknow that ignorant people will be found who will believe them and feed them. Ifyou confine them to prison or send them into exile, they will corrupt theirneighbors with their speech and those who are far away with their books.Therefore, there is only one remedy, send them timely to their place.

Thirdly, forgers, in the judgment of all, deserve death; but heretics areforgers of the Word of God.

Fourthly, by the reasoning of Augustine, in Letter 50, it is more seriousfor man to fail to keep faith with God, than for a women not to keep faith witha man, but this is punished by death, why not the former?

Fifthly, there are three reasons why, as reason teaches, men are to be putto death, as Galen eloquently teaches in a book whose title is: "That thehabits of the soul imitate the temperaments of the body," toward the endof the book.

The first reason is, Lest the evil injure the good, or the innocent beabused by the injurious, in the judgment of all, all are to be executed who areguilty of homicide, adultery, or robbery. The second reason is: That, by thepunishment of the few, the many may be corrected: and that those who areunwilling to help society by living may benefit it by dying. And hence, we alsosee that, in the opinion of all, certain most horrendous crimes are most justlypunished by death, even though they do no injury to the neighbor, except byexample: crimes like Necromancy, crimes that are abominable and contrary tonature are, therefore, most severely punished, in order that others may knowthey are monstrous crimes and should not dare to perpetrate the like. Thirdly,because to the very men who are killed it is beneficial to be killed, when,namely, they are becoming ever worse and it is not probable that they will everrevert to sanity of mind.

All these reasons are persuasive that heretics should be put to death; for,in the first place, they injure the neighbor more seriously than any pirate orrobber, since they kill souls; even worse, they take away the foundation forall good and fill the state with the upheavals that inevitably result from thediversity of religions.